FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 01/15/2020 06:04 PM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 147
`
`INDEX NO. 011187/2016
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/15/2020
`
`Salinas
`97 N.Y.S.3d
`
`v. 64 Jefferson
`LLC, 170 A.D.3d
`Apartments,
`136, 2019 N.Y. Slip Op. 02370
`
`1216 (2019)
`
`Supreme
`
`170 A.D.3d
`Appellate
`Court,
`Department,
`
`1216
`Divisicñ,
`New York.
`
`Second
`
`Jose SALINAS,
`
`Respondent-Appellant,
`v.
`64 JEFFERSON
`APARTMENTS,
`Appellant-Respondent.
`
`LLC,
`
`2016-11306
`
`(Index
`
`No. 52216/13)
`
`Argued-n----
`
`hav·
`
`7, 2018
`
`March
`
`27, 2019
`
`.
`
`Synopsis
`brought
`employee
`Maintenance
`Background:
`company
`on
`business
`that owned
`the rental
`action
`against
`property
`sustained
`injuries.
`The Supreme
`which
`employee
`Court,
`Westchester
`County, Mary H. Smith,
`business's
`J., denied
`motion
`for
`judgment
`and
`denied
`in part
`and
`summary
`granted
`in part
`employee's
`cross motion
`for
`summary
`judgment.
`Business
`and
`employee
`appealed,
`cross-appealed.
`
`Holdings:
`
`The Supreme
`
`Court,
`
`Appellate
`
`Division,
`
`held
`
`business
`extending
`provisions;
`
`[2] employee
`for extending
`
`was
`not
`Workers'
`
`company's
`Compensation
`
`alter
`
`ego,
`Law's
`
`for
`
`as basis
`exclusivity
`
`special
`was not business's
`employee,
`and
`provisions;
`exclusivity
`
`as basis
`
`E3]business was liable
`
`to spleyee
`
`under
`
`scaffold
`
`law·
`
`Affirmed
`
`as mMW
`
`West Headnotes
`
`(17)
`
`sole remedy
`employee's
`injured
`An
`under
`or her employer
`is recovery
`Law. N.Y. Workers'
`Compensation
`§§ 11, 29(6).
`
`his
`against
`the Workers'
`Comp.
`Law
`
`21
`
`Workers'
`
`Compensation
`What Persons
`Liable
`
`as Third Persons
`
`brought
`lawsuits
`against
`protection
`The
`by
`to employers
`is afforded
`which
`workers
`injured
`Workers'
`Compensation
`to
`Law also extends
`by
`are alter egos of
`which
`entities
`the entity which
`N.Y. Workers'
`the
`employs
`plaintiff.
`Comp.
`Law §§ 11, 29(6).
`
`[3]
`
`Judgment
`Labor
`
`and employment
`
`A defendant
`judgment
`for
`summary
`moving
`the Workers'
`defense
`of
`based on the exclusivity
`Compensation
`Law under
`an alter
`ego theory
`must
`show, prima
`that
`it was the alter ego
`facie,
`Workers'
`of
`the
`plaintiff
`s æployer.
`N.Y.
`Comp.
`Law §§ 11, 29(6).
`
`141
`
`Workers'
`
`Compensation
`What Persons
`Liable
`
`as Third Persons
`
`A defendant may establish
`as the alter ego
`itself
`purposes
`of
`the
`for
`of a plaintiff
`s employer,
`Workers'
`the
`of
`provisions
`exclusivity
`Compensation
`Law,
`by demonstrating
`of
`the entities
`controls
`the other
`or
`a
`0Perate
`as
`single
`integrated
`Workers'
`Comp.
`Law §§ 11, 29(6).
`
`that one
`the two
`N.1
`
`that
`ennty.
`
`Ill
`
`Workers'
`
`Compensation
`Exclusiveness
`of Remedies
`
`Afforded
`
`WESTLAW
`
`© 2019
`
`Thomson
`
`Reuters.
`
`by Acts
`No claim to original
`
`U.S. Govemment
`
`Works.
`
`5
`
`

`

`FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 01/15/2020 06:04 PM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 147
`
`INDEX NO. 011187/2016
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/15/2020
`
`Salinas
`97 N.Y.S.3d
`
`v. 64 Jefferson
`LLC, 170 A.D.3d
`Apartments,
`136, 2019 N.Y. Slip Op. 02370
`
`1216 (2019)
`
`against
`Workers'
`
`or
`his
`Comp.
`
`employer.
`special
`her
`Law §§ 11, 29(6).
`
`N.Y.
`
`181
`
`Workers'
`Compensation
`Liable
`What Persons
`
`as Third Persons
`
`151
`
`Workers'
`
`Compensation
`What Persons
`Liable
`
`as Third Persons
`
`A mere
`defendant
`a
`and
`a
`that
`showing
`to
`is insufficient
`are related
`s employer
`plaintiff
`purposes
`the
`of
`for
`alter
`ego
`show
`status,
`Workers'
`the
`provisions
`of
`exclusivity
`the dehd-t
`Compensation
`Law, where
`demonstrate
`the entities
`that one of
`operations
`of
`the
`day-to-day
`Workers'
`Comp.
`Law §§ 11, 29(6).
`
`cannot
`controls
`the
`other.
`N.Y.
`
`I'l
`
`Workers'
`
`Compensation
`What Persons
`Liable
`
`as Third Persons
`
`rental
`not
`was
`owned
`that
`Business
`property
`ego of maintenance
`for
`as basis
`alter
`company,
`the exclusivity
`provisions
`to business
`extending
`the Workers'
`in company
`of
`Compensation
`Law,
`against
`to recover
`employee's
`action
`business
`for personal
`individuals
`who controlled
`injuries;
`maintained
`as
`the
`entities
`them
`separately,
`of
`neither was a subsidiary
`the other,
`the entities
`were
`formed
`for
`different
`with
`purposes,
`business
`construction
`work
`that
`performing
`could
`not
`have
`been
`performed
`company,
`by
`tenants
`at business's
`entered
`into
`property
`agenet
`lease
`not
`with
`business,
`workers'
`company's
`company,
`was
`for
`compensation
`the benefit
`N.Y. Workers'
`own
`employees
`Law §§ 11, 29(6).
`
`a
`
`its
`of
`Comp.
`
`with
`
`and
`policy
`only.
`
`Workers'
`
`Election
`
`Compensation
`of Remedies
`
`receive
`to
`elects
`who
`person
`injured
`An
`workers'
`benefits
`from his or her
`compensation
`is barred
`spleye
`the
`general
`by
`exclusivity
`the Workers'
`of
`Compensation
`Law
`previ::ions
`from
`a
`personal
`action
`maintainiñg
`injury
`
`A "special
`exclusivity
`Compensation
`transferred
`duration
`Workers'
`
`employee,"
`
`the
`of
`Workers'
`
`is
`
`purposes
`for
`provisions
`the
`of
`is defined
`as one who
`Law,
`limited
`of whatever
`a
`time
`service
`another.
`N.Y.
`of
`Law §§ 11, 29(6).
`
`for
`the
`to
`Comp.
`
`I'l
`
`Workers'
`
`Compensation
`Liable
`What Persons
`
`as Third Persons
`
`a
`
`is
`factor
`Although
`one
`no
`determi=£ve,
`significant
`feature
`in
`and
`deciding
`weighty
`special
`employment
`a
`whether
`relationship
`for purposes
`the exclusivity
`provisions
`of
`exists,
`the Workers'
`of
`Compensation
`is who
`Law,
`cent-ch
`directs
`the manner,
`and
`and
`details,
`ultimate
`the employee's
`i.e., who
`result
`of
`work,
`determines
`and
`all
`essential,
`Incational,
`of
`recogñizable
`components
`the
`commonly
`N.Y. Workers'
`employee's
`reladen±ip.
`work
`Law §§ 11, 29(6).
`Comp.
`
`("l
`
`Workers'
`
`Compensation
`What Persons
`Liable
`
`as Third Persons
`
`for
`
`Factors
`employment
`the
`exclusivity
`Compensation
`the payment
`for
`who
`~pipme+,
`and
`employee,
`performed
`was
`employer's
`or
`
`special
`a
`whether
`determining
`for purposes
`of
`exists,
`relationship
`the Workers'
`of
`provisions
`who
`is responsible
`include
`Law,
`and the f½W-g
`of wages
`has the right
`to discharge
`whether
`the
`work
`of
`furtherance
`the
`in
`the general
`employer's
`
`of
`the
`being
`special
`business.
`
`WESTLAW
`
`© 2019
`
`Thomson
`
`Reuters.
`
`No claim to original
`
`U.S. Govemment
`
`Works.
`
`6
`
`

`

`FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 01/15/2020 06:04 PM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 147
`
`INDEX NO. 011187/2016
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/15/2020
`
`Salinas
`97 N.Y.S.3d
`
`v. 64 Jefferson
`LLC, 170 A.D.3d
`Apartments,
`136, 2019 N.Y. Slip Op. 02370
`
`1216 (2019)
`
`N.Y. Workers'
`
`Comp.
`
`Law §§ 11, 29(6).
`
`l"1
`
`Workers'
`
`e-What
`
`Compensation
`Persons
`Liable
`
`as Third Persons
`
`a
`
`not
`was
`company's
`Maintenance
`employee
`rental
`special
`employee
`of business
`that owned
`the
`as basis
`for extending
`to business
`property,
`Workers'
`provisions
`of
`the
`exclusivity
`action
`in
`Compensation
`employee's
`Law,
`against
`business
`to recover
`for personal
`injuries;
`employes
`were
`checks
`c~npa-y's
`paid
`by
`of
`the
`drawn
`on company's
`irrespective
`account,
`to work,
`at which
`they were
`directed
`property
`ladder
`equipm=t
`used
`employee
`at
`and
`by
`owned
`were
`business's
`comp=y,
`property
`by
`and managanent
`agreement
`between
`business
`required
`to
`and
`company
`employ
`company
`persons
`to
`maintain
`the
`where
`property
`was injured
`and to pay their
`salaries.
`employee
`N.Y. Workers'
`Comp.
`Law §§ 11, 29(6).
`
`there must
`violation
`plaintiff
`
`and that
`the statute
`of
`be a viola+ien
`of
`the
`a proximate
`cause
`must
`be
`s injuries.
`N.Y.
`Labor
`Law § 240(1).
`
`1 Cases that cite this headnote
`
`Judgment
`e-Torts
`
`Once a plainüfr
`facie showing
`a prima
`makes
`the senWald
`the burden
`a violation
`of
`law,
`to
`who
`shifts
`the
`defendant,
`may
`plaintiff
`s motion
`for summary
`judgment
`there is a plausible
`view of
`the evidence,
`raise
`that
`there
`to
`a fact
`question,
`and that plentin's
`violation
`statutory
`or omissions
`were the sole cause of
`N.Y.
`Labor
`Law § 240(1).
`
`of
`then
`defeat
`if
`only
`enough
`was
`no
`own
`acts
`the accident.
`
`1 Cases that cite this headaete
`
`[12j
`
`Negligence
`e-Scaffolding
`Negligence
`e-Contractors
`
`laws
`
`law imposes
`Scaffold
`and general
`owners
`to
`devices
`elevation-related
`240(1).
`
`duty upon
`a nondelegable
`contractors
`to provide
`safety
`protect
`workers
`from
`risks.
`Labor
`Law
`
`N.Y.
`
`ll5l
`
`Negligence
`e-Particular
`
`cases
`
`The sole prnrimate
`to a claim of
`cause defense
`where
`the
`scaffold
`law
`violation
`applies
`as a recalcitrant
`worker, misused
`Plaintiff,
`acting
`chose to use
`an otherwise
`proper
`device,
`safety
`an inadequate
`safety device when proper
`devices
`or
`failed
`to
`use
`were
`available,
`any
`readily
`device
`when
`proper
`devices
`were
`available.
`N.Y.
`Labor
`Law § 240(1).
`
`§
`
`Il31
`
`Negligence
`e-Scaffolding
`Negligence
`-Liabilities
`and repair
`
`laws
`
`relating
`
`to construction,
`
`de=elinen
`
`To impose
`
`liability
`
`pursuant
`
`to the senfold
`
`law,
`
`Negligence
`-Liabilities
`and repair
`Negligence
`bar
`e-As
`
`relating
`
`to construction,
`
`d--
`
`to recovery;
`
`contributory
`
`negligence
`
`negligence
`Contributory
`to a hifold
`is not a defense
`N.Y.
`Labor
`Law § 240(1).
`
`on the part of a worker
`law cause of action.
`
`WESTLAW
`
`© 2019
`
`Thomson
`
`Reuters.
`
`No claim to original
`
`U.S. Govemment
`
`Works.
`
`7
`
`

`

`FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 01/15/2020 06:04 PM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 147
`
`INDEX NO. 011187/2016
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/15/2020
`
`Salinas
`97 N.Y.S.3d
`
`v. 64 Jefferson
`LLC, 170 A.D.3d
`Apartments,
`136, 2019 N.Y. Slip Op. 02370
`
`1216 (2019)
`
`Negligence
`Scaffolding
`Negligence
`As bar
`
`laws
`
`to recovery;
`
`contributory
`
`negligence
`
`**139
`
`DECISION
`
`& ORDER
`
`that owned
`Business
`liable
`was
`rental
`property
`to maintenance
`under
`the
`employee
`company's
`scaffold
`ladder
`on which
`employee
`had
`law;
`been
`moved
`for
`no
`apparent
`reason,
`standing
`him to fall,
`and, even if employs
`had
`causing
`set
`the ladder
`on top of a drop
`employee
`cloth,
`would
`have been
`negligent,
`only
`contributorily
`which was not a defense
`under
`the scaffold
`law.
`N.Y.
`Labor
`Law § 240(1).
`
`In
`
`for
`to
`an action
`personal
`damages
`recover
`**138
`the
`the
`plaintiff
`and
`defendant
`appeals,
`injuries,
`Supreme
`an
`the
`order
`of
`from
`cross-appeals,
`Court,
`J.), dated September
`Westchester
`(Mary H. Smith,
`County
`23, 2016.
`The order,
`in effect,
`insofar
`as appealed
`from,
`that branch
`motion
`denied
`of
`the defendant's
`which was
`for
`the
`in
`judgment
`complai-t,
`summary
`dismissing
`granted
`cross motion
`that branch
`the plaianFs
`of
`effect,
`on the issue of
`which was for summary
`judgment
`liability
`on the cause of action
`of Labor
`a violanæ
`Law §
`alleging
`and granted
`the plaintiff
`of
`s cross
`that
`branch
`240(1),
`defendant's
`motion
`which
`was
`to
`the
`tenth
`dismiss
`affirmative
`The order,
`defense.
`insofar
`as cross-appealed
`the plaintiff
`in effect,
`denied
`those
`branches
`of
`from,
`motion
`cross
`which
`were
`for
`judgment
`summary
`the def=dant's
`eighth
`and ninth
`affirmative
`dismissing
`and denied
`defenses
`that
`branch
`of
`the plaintiFs
`cross
`motion which was pursuant
`to CPLR 3126 for preclusion.
`
`s
`
`Attorneys
`
`and Law Firms
`
`Margaret
`Woodbury,
`Cascino],
`
`G.
`Klein
`(Mauro
`Naparty
`Lilling
`and Gregory
`N.Y.
`W. Naparty
`[Matthew
`for appellant-respondent.
`of counsel),
`
`LLP,
`A.
`
`Hausman
`of counsel),
`
`& Pendzick,
`Harrison,
`for
`respondent-appellant·
`
`N.Y.
`
`(Alan R. Gray,
`
`Jr.,
`
`F. MASTRO,
`WILLIAM
`JOSEPH J. MALTESE,
`© 2019
`WESTLAW
`
`J.P.
`HECTÖR
`
`Thomson
`
`A. COHEN
`JEFFREY
`JJ.
`D. LASALLE,
`Reuters.
`No claim to original
`
`'
`
`on the law, by
`is modified,
`that order
`*1217 ORDERED
`those
`the provisions
`in effect,
`thereof,
`d=ying
`deleting
`which
`were
`for
`branches
`of
`the alaintiFs
`cross motion
`eighth
`and
`ninth
`judgment
`the
`summary
`dismissing
`therefor
`provisicas
`affirmative
`and cuhrit=ting
`defenses,
`as
`s cross motion;
`those branches
`of
`the plaintiff
`granting
`and
`as appealed
`so modified,
`the order
`is affirmed
`insofar
`and
`a
`cross-appealed
`with
`costs
`to the plaintiff,
`from,
`subsequent
`decision
`of
`the
`court
`dated March
`same
`7,
`.
`is vacated.
`2017,
`
`action
`personal
`commenced
`The
`this
`plaintiff
`injury
`a
`defendant
`against
`other
`the
`things,
`alleging,
`among
`the
`its
`In
`Labor
`Law
`§ 240(1).
`violation
`of
`answer,
`defendant
`asserted
`a number
`of
`affirmative
`defenses,
`as its eighth
`it was an
`affirmative
`that
`including,
`defense,
`alter ego of
`the plaintiff
`s employer,
`it
`excluding
`thereby
`sustained
`from liability
`for
`injuries
`by the plaintiff
`under
`the Workers'
`Compensation
`affirmative
`as its ninth
`Law;
`defense
`it was
`the
`plaintiff
`s special
`that
`employer,
`sustained
`it
`from liability
`for
`injuries
`excluding
`thereby
`the Workers'
`Compensation
`by the plain+iE
`under
`Law;
`and, as its tenth affirmative
`the plaintiff
`was
`that
`defense,
`dated April
`worker.
`a recalcitrant
`By notice
`of motion
`27,
`defendant
`the
`inter
`for
`2016,
`moved,
`alia,
`summary
`judgment
`the complaint
`that all
`on the ground
`dismissing
`of
`the
`plaintiff
`s claims
`the
`against
`it
`are
`barred
`by
`the Workers'
`provisions
`of
`Compensation
`exclusivity
`that
`on
`ground
`it was
`the
`of
`the
`the
`alter
`ego
`Law,
`plaiaties
`employer.
`The
`plaintiff
`opposed
`the
`and
`other
`defeda-at's
`motion,
`cross-moved,
`among
`on the issue of
`judgment
`on
`for summary
`things,
`liability
`the Labor
`Law
`cause
`of action;
`for
`§ 240(1)
`summary
`the defendant's
`judgment
`*1218
`eighth,
`ninth,
`dismissing
`and tenth
`affirmative
`and pursuant
`to CPLR
`defenses;
`to
`preclude
`the
`defendant
`from
`on
`3126
`relying
`in support
`of
`and at
`that
`it had
`documents
`its motion
`failed
`to exchange
`discovery.
`during
`
`trial
`
`the Sup-e
`In an order dated September
`Court,
`23, 2016,
`issues of
`there were triable
`fact
`that
`inter alia, determined
`with
`to the
`defendant's
`alter
`ego defense
`respect
`and,
`upon
`its determination,
`in effect,
`denied
`the defenda.nt's
`m on
`anches oMe
`ose
`s
`an
`Plaintiff
`cross
`were
`which
`for
`summary
`
`motion
`
`s
`
`U.S. Govemment
`
`Works.
`
`8
`
`

`

`FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 01/15/2020 06:04 PM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 147
`
`INDEX NO. 011187/2016
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/15/2020
`
`Salinas
`97 N.Y.S.3d
`
`v. 64 Jefferson
`LLC, 170 A.D.3d
`Apartments,
`136, 2019 N.Y. Slip Op. 02370
`
`1216 (2019)
`
`and ninth
`eighth
`defendant's
`the
`judgment
`dismissing
`defenses
`granted
`in effect,
`court
`The
`affirmative
`also,
`s cross motion
`which was for
`of
`the plaintiff
`that branch
`judgment
`on the issue of
`on the Labor
`süruruary
`liability
`Law § 240(1)
`cause of action,
`granted
`that branch
`of
`the
`plaintiff
`s cross motion
`which was for summary
`judgment
`the defendant's
`tenth
`affirmative
`and
`defense,
`dismissing
`denied
`that branch
`of
`the plaintiff
`s cross motion
`which
`was pursuant
`to CPLR 3126 for preclusion.
`
`pl pl pl
`
`[41 [sjAn injured
`against
`sole remedy
`employee's
`the Workers'
`under
`is recovery
`or her
`employer
`his
`Law (see Workers'
`Compensation
`Law §§
`Compensation
`51
`Mach.
`Tool Corp.,
`v. Consolidated
`11, 29[6];
`Billy
`879, 412 N.E.2d
`934).
`N.Y.2d
`156, 432 N.Y.S.2d
`152,
`brought
`injured
`"The
`protection
`against
`lawsuits
`by
`Workers'
`worius
`which
`is afforded
`to
`employers
`by
`Compensation
`to
`extends
`also
`Law
`11 and
`§§
`29(6)
`employs
`entities
`which
`are alter egos of
`the entity which
`the plaintiff'
`v. B & E Lorge
`(Moses
`147
`Trust,
`Family
`quetn£nn
`A.D.3d
`1046, 48 N.Y.S.3d
`231 [internal
`1045,
`marks
`see Haines
`v. Verazzano
`of Dutchess,
`omitted];
`130 A.D.3d
`12 N.Y.S.3d
`**140
`EC,
`871,
`872,
`906;
`v. Winter
`Transfer
`McDonald
`Bros.
`Sta.
`120
`Corp.,
`A.D.3d
`992 N.Y.S.2d
`IBEX
`568; Batts
`v.
`Constr.,
`1315,
`112 A.D.3d
`765, 766, 977 N.Y.S.2d
`v.
`282; guizhpe
`EC,
`103 A.D.3d
`960
`Luvin
`Constr.
`Corp.,
`618,
`618-619,
`defendant
`N.Y.S.2d
`130).
`"A
`for
`moving
`summary
`judgment
`based
`on
`the
`defense
`of
`the
`exclusivity
`Workers'
`Compensation
`Law
`under
`this
`must
`theory
`of
`prima
`that
`it was
`the
`alter
`ego
`the
`facie,
`show,
`employm"
`s
`plaintiff
`(Haines
`v. Verazzano
`of Dutchess,
`at
`130 A.D.3d
`12 N.Y.S.3d
`[internal
`906
`872,
`EC,
`quotation marks
`v. IBEX Constr.,
`see Batts
`omitted];
`EC,
`112 A.D.3d
`at 766, 977 N.Y.S.2d
`v. Luvin
`282; Quizhpe
`103 A.D.3d
`at 619, 960 N.Y.S.2d
`130).
`"A
`Constr. Corp.,
`defendant
`establish
`itself
`as
`the
`alter
`ego
`of
`a
`may
`plaintiff
`s employer
`that
`one
`the
`by
`demem+rating
`entities
`controls
`the other
`or
`that
`the two
`operate
`as a
`entity"
`single
`integrated
`(Quizhpe
`v. Luvin
`Constr.
`Corp.,
`103 A.D.3d
`at 619, 960 N.Y.S.2d
`IBEX
`130; see Batts
`112 A.D.3d
`at 766,
`977 N.Y.S.2d
`Constr.,
`LLC,
`282;
`75 A.D.3d
`Samuel
`v. Fourth
`Ave. Assoc.,
`LLC,
`594, 595,
`906 N.Y.S.2d
`67).
`"[A] mere showing
`that
`the entities
`are
`related
`is
`insufficient
`where
`a
`defendant
`cannot
`demonstrate
`that
`one of
`the entities
`controls
`the
`*1219
`other"
`of
`operations
`the
`(Samuel
`v. Fourth
`day-to-day
`75 A.D.3d
`at 595, 906 N.Y.S.2d
`Ave. Assoc.,
`67; see
`LLC,
`IBEX
`112 A.D.3d
`at 767,
`Batts
`v.
`977
`Constr.,
`EC,
`N.Y.S.2d
`282; Longshore
`v. Davis
`Sys. of Capital
`Dist.,
`304 A.D.2d
`964, 965, 759 N.Y.S.2d
`204; Constantine
`v.
`Premier
`295 A.D.2d
`303, 304, 743 N.Y.S.2d
`Cab Corp.,
`516).
`
`of
`
`v.
`
`for
`the
`by
`
`he
`
`of
`
`in moving
`to the defendant's
`contention,
`(61Contrary
`the
`complaint
`on
`judgment
`dismissing
`summary
`against
`it are barred
`that
`the plaintiff
`s claims
`ground
`the Workers'
`the exclusivity
`I
`of
`Compensation
`-,
`p
`on
`the
`ground
`it was
`the
`alter
`ego
`of
`the
`that
`Law,
`plaintiff
`s employer,
`it
`failed
`to make
`a prima
`facie
`that
`it
`and Westchester
`Management,
`LLC,
`showing
`operated
`as a single
`integrated
`(see Samuel
`v.
`entity
`75 A.D.3d
`at
`906
`Fourth
`Ave.
`Assoc.,
`595,
`LLC.,
`N.Y.S.2d
`67). The defendant's
`submissions
`demonstrated
`defendant
`that
`the
`and Westchester
`Management
`are
`related.
`Gil Bergman
`explained
`in an affidavit
`closely
`submitted
`in support
`of
`the
`defendant's
`motion
`that
`and his wife
`control
`15 stitis,
`apprnrimately
`including
`own
`the
`which
`in
`turn
`various
`parcels
`defendant,
`and
`residentin1
`rental
`that Westchester
`properties,
`Management
`was formed
`to provide maintenance
`services
`to
`those
`various
`properties.
`the
`defendant's
`However,
`submissians
`also
`demonstrated
`that
`the Bergmans
`have
`and Westchester
`been
`careful
`to maintain
`the defendant
`Management
`as separate
`and distinct
`from each
`other.
`other
`neither
`is a subsidiary
`of
`the
`things,
`Among
`entity
`the
`entities
`were
`formed
`for
`different
`corporate
`other,
`the defendant
`maintains
`its own
`bank
`account
`purposes,
`separate
`from that of Westchester
`Management
`and pays
`its own
`and separate Schedule
`Cs are filed
`for
`expenses,
`each
`for
`tax
`albeit
`as
`part
`of
`the
`purposes,
`entity
`Bergmans'
`personal
`income
`tax return
`(see Longshore
`v.
`304
`A.D.2d
`of Capital
`759
`Sys.
`Davis
`Dist.,
`964,
`220 A.D.2d
`N.Y.S.2d
`v. Angiuli
`204; Rosenburg
`Buick,
`658). The defendant
`654, 632 N.Y.S.2d
`and Westchester
`Management
`are
`parties
`to
`a management
`agreement
`which
`provides
`that Westchester
`Management
`will
`act as
`the defendant
`an agent
`for
`with regard
`to the management
`and maintenance
`of
`the defendant's
`property. Westchester
`Management's
`employees
`perform
`maintenance
`and
`prepartiac
`superintendent
`services
`at various
`owned
`by all
`of
`the entities
`controlled
`by the Bergmans,
`not only
`the
`and the employees
`are paid with
`checks
`drawn
`defendant,
`of Westchester
`on the account
`Management
`**141
`only.
`The
`on
`the
`other
`itself
`employs
`defendant,
`hand,
`contractors
`to perform
`construction
`work
`at
`its premises
`beyond
`that
`which
`the
`employees
`of Westchester
`Management
`are able to perform,
`such as the installation
`of a new roof,
`and pays
`those
`contractors
`with
`checks
`drawn
`on the defendant's
`account.
`In addition,
`nonparty
`Juan
`an
`employee
`of Westchester
`*1220
`Ovalles,
`testified
`at his
`deposition
`that
`he was
`Management,
`unaware
`that
`the properties
`that
`he and his
`coworkers
`maintained
`were
`also
`controlled
`the
`Bergmans,
`by
`the premises
`owned
`the defendant.
`Given
`by
`including
`the
`defendant
`this
`failed
`to
`prima
`evidence,
`establish,
`that
`it and Westchester
`Management
`operated
`as a
`facie,
`single
`integrated
`(see Salcedo
`v. Demon
`Trucking,
`entity
`
`WESTLAW
`
`© 2019
`
`Thomson
`
`Reuters.
`
`No claim to original
`
`U.S. Govemment
`
`Works.
`
`9
`
`

`

`FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 01/15/2020 06:04 PM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 147
`
`INDEX NO. 011187/2016
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/15/2020
`
`Salinas
`97 N.Y.S.3d
`
`v. 64 Jefferson
`LLC, 170 A.D.3d
`Apartments,
`136, 2019 N.Y. Slip Op. 02370
`
`1216 (2019)
`
`839, 841, 44 N.Y.S.3d
`146 A.D.3d
`543; Longshore
`Inc.,
`304 A.D.2d
`at 965,
`v. Davis
`Sys. of Capital
`759
`Dist.,
`N.Y.S.2d
`220 A.D.2d
`at
`v. Angiuli
`204; Rosenburg
`Buick,
`632 N.Y.S.2d
`Cappella
`v. Suresky
`at
`655,
`658;
`cf
`55 A.D.3d
`864 N.Y.S.2d
`Hatfeld
`Lane,
`522,
`523,
`LLC,
`316).
`we
`agree with
`the
`denial
`of
`that
`Accordingly,
`branch
`of
`the defendant's
`motion
`which was for summary
`judgment
`the
`complaint
`on
`this
`didd.g
`basis,
`regardless
`of
`the sufFiciency
`of
`the plaintiff's
`opposition
`papers
`(see Winegrad
`v. New York Univ. Med
`Ctr.,
`316, 476 N.E.2d
`642).
`851, 853, 487 N.Y.S.2d
`N.Y.2d
`
`64
`
`is
`to
`
`the
`
`to the Sup-e
`Court's
`determination,
`However,
`contrary
`judgment
`for
`in cross moving
`dismissing
`summary
`the
`plaintiff's
`defendant's
`eighth
`aHirmative
`defense,
`submissians
`the defendant
`that
`prima
`facie,
`established,
`In addition
`employer.
`not an alter ego of
`the plaintiff's
`submissions
`the plaintiff's
`the evidence
`described
`above,
`at
`the
`defendant's
`rental
`demonstrated
`that
`tenants
`enter
`into a lease agreement
`with
`the defendant,
`property
`and not Westchester
`and that
`the Worker's
`Management,
`Compensation
`for Westchester
`Management
`is for
`Policy
`the
`benefit
`its
`own
`employees
`when
`those
`of
`only,
`employees
`are working
`at various
`locations,
`including,
`other
`the
`owned
`the
`locations,
`among
`property
`by
`defendant
`In
`opposition
`to the
`plaintiff's
`prima
`facie
`the defendant
`failed
`to raise
`a triable
`issue
`of
`showing,
`fact
`304
`(see Longshore
`v. Davis
`Sys. of Capital
`Dist.,
`["
`A.D.2d
`759 N.Y.S.2d
`at 964,
`204
`'The
`individual
`in
`this
`business
`for
`their
`own
`enterprise,
`princip(als)
`business
`legal
`elected
`to
`operate
`that
`and
`advantage,
`enterprise
`through
`separate
`corporate
`entities.
`The
`structure
`created
`should
`not
`be ignored
`at
`they
`lightly
`their
`in order
`to shield
`one of
`the entities
`behest,
`they
`liability'
`"
`created
`from ...
`-man-law
`tort
`(quoting
`Buchner
`87 A.D.2d
`v. Pines
`448
`691,
`Hotel,
`692,
`branch
`). Accordingly,
`that
`of
`the
`N.Y.S.2d
`]
`870)
`plaintiff's
`cross motion
`which was for summary
`judg==t
`the
`defendant's
`eighth
`aHirmative
`defense
`dismissing
`should
`have been granted.
`
`[7]
`
`[8] [9] [10]The Supreme
`granted
`have
`also should
`Court
`which was for
`cross motion
`that branch
`of
`the plaintiff's
`the
`defendant's
`judgment
`ninth
`summary
`dismissing
`aHirmative
`defense.
`The
`exclusive
`doctrine
`of
`remedy
`Workers'
`Compensation
`Law §§ 11 and 29(6)
`has been
`extended
`to entities
`other
`than the injured
`plénFs
`direct
`such as special
`employers
`(see *1221
`v.
`employer,
`Fung
`9 N.Y.3d
`Airlines
`850
`Japan
`Co.,
`Ltd.,
`351,
`357,
`359, 880 N.E.2d
`845; Gonzalez
`N.Y.S.2d
`v. Woodbourne
`100 A.D.3d
`954 N.Y.S.2d
`113).
`Arboretum,
`Inc.,
`694,
`workers'
`an injured
`person who
`elects
`to receive
`"Thus,
`is
`compensation
`benefits
`from his or her general
`employer
`barred
`from maintaining
`a personal
`action
`against
`injury
`
`(121 (131 (141 (151 l¹61We agree with
`Court's
`the Supreme
`determinatinn
`Labor
`that
`the
`*1222
`defendant
`violated
`and granting
`that branch
`of
`the plénFs
`Law § 240(1),
`motion
`which
`was
`to
`dismiss
`the
`defendant's
`tenth
`aHirmative
`that
`the
`plaintiff
`was
`a
`defense,
`asserting
`
`WESTLAW
`
`© 2019
`
`Thomson
`
`Reuters.
`
`No claim to original
`
`U.S. Govemment
`
`Works.
`
`10
`
`employer"
`
`of
`
`(Gonzalez
`special
`or her
`his
`v. Woodbourne
`113).
`at 697, 954 N.Y.S.2d
`100 A.D.3d
`Arboretum,
`Inc.,
`employee"
`A "special
`defined
`as
`"one
`who
`is
`is
`of whatever
`**142
`duration
`time
`for a limited
`transferred
`another"
`service
`of
`to
`the
`(Thompson
`v. Grumman
`553, 557, 578 N.Y.S.2d
`78 N.Y.2d
`Aerospace
`106,
`Corp.,
`N.E.2d
`355).
`"Although
`no
`one
`factor
`is
`585
`and
`a
`significant
`feature
`in
`determinative,
`weighty
`employment
`whether
`a special
`exists
`deciding
`relationship
`is who
`controls
`and
`directs
`the manner,
`details
`and
`ultimate
`result
`the employee's
`work-in
`other words,
`who
`determines
`all
`locational
`and
`essential,
`commonly
`of
`recognizable
`components
`the
`work
`[employee's]
`relationship"
`9 N.Y.3d
`v. Japan Airlines
`Co., Ltd.,
`(Fung
`880 N.E.2d
`[internal
`850 N.Y.S.2d
`at 359,
`845
`359,
`marks
`). "Other
`factors
`include who is
`quotation
`omitted]
`for
`the payment
`of wages
`and the fhrnishing
`responsible
`of
`who
`has
`the
`right
`to
`discharge
`the
`equipment,
`and whether
`the work
`performed
`was in
`employee,
`being
`furtherance
`of
`the
`special
`employer's
`or
`the
`general
`business"
`employer's
`74
`(Franco
`v. Kaled Mgt.
`Corp.,
`A.D.3d
`903 N.Y.S.2d
`512
`[internal
`1142,
`1142-1143,
`quotation marks
`omitted]).
`
`-¾
`
`as
`
`by
`
`plaintiff's
`the
`the
`argued
`plaintiff,
`l"lHere,
`a
`that he was not
`prima
`submissions
`facie,
`established,
`defendant
`at
`the
`time
`of his
`the
`special
`employee
`of
`plaintiff
`submitted
`the
`other
`things,
`Among
`of Westchester
`the
`employees
`that
`he
`and
`evidence
`of
`on the account
`are paid by checks
`drawn
`Management
`at
`of
`the property
`irrespective
`Westchester
`Management,
`and
`are directed
`and that
`to work,
`the ladder
`which
`they
`used by the plaintifr
`other
`eqdp=~it
`at
`the defendant's
`In
`premises
`were
`owned
`by Westchester
`Management.
`the
`the
`management
`agreement
`between
`addition,
`defendant
`and
`Westchester
`Management
`requires
`to maintain
`Westchester
`Management
`to employ
`persons
`the property
`where
`the p½tiE
`was
`and to pay
`injured,
`their
`salaries
`282
`(cf Syku v. La Barranca
`Corp.,
`Realty
`A.D.2d
`723 N.Y.S.2d
`379). Moreover,
`given
`the
`600,
`defendant's
`failure
`to oppose
`this branch
`of
`the plaintiff's
`in
`cross motion,
`it
`failed
`to raise
`a triable
`issue
`of
`fact
`opposition
`v.
`(see
`Deutsche
`Bank
`Natl.
`Trust
`Co.
`137 A.D.3d
`28 N.Y.S.3d
`444).
`Naughton,
`1199,
`1200,
`The defendant's
`arguments
`its special
`employee
`regarding
`defense
`are improperly
`raised
`for
`the first
`time
`on appeal
`164 A.D.3d
`(see e.g. Eun Suk Cho v. Byung Ki Koo,
`1306,
`82 N.Y.S.3d
`124).
`
`

`

`FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 01/15/2020 06:04 PM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 147
`
`INDEX NO. 011187/2016
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/15/2020
`
`Salinas
`97 N.Y.S.3d
`
`v. 64 Jefferson
`LLC, 170 A.D.3d
`Apartments,
`136, 2019 N.Y. Slip Op. 02370
`
`1216 (2019)
`
`a
`imposes
`Law
`"Labor
`worker.
`recalcitrant
`§ 240(1)
`to
`contractors
`and general
`duty upon owners
`nondelegable
`from
`workers
`protect
`devices
`to
`provide
`safety
`risks"
`elevation-related
`v. Bridgeview
`(Silvas
`Invs.,
`LLC,
`impose
`79 A.D.3d
`912 N.Y.S.2d
`618).
`"To
`727,
`731,
`pursuant
`to Labor
`Law § 240(1),
`there must be a
`liability
`violation
`of
`the
`statute
`and
`that
`violation
`must
`be a
`s injuries"
`proxh-ste
`cause of
`the plaintiff
`(id. at 731, 912
`N.Y.S.2d
`618 [internal
`quotation marks
`). "Once
`emitted]
`the plaintiff
`makes
`a prima
`facie showing
`the burden
`then
`shifts
`to the defendant,
`who may defeat plai-+irs
`motion
`for summary
`judgment
`if
`there is a plausible
`view of
`only
`the evidence-enough
`to raise a fact question-that
`there
`was no statutory
`violation
`and that plaintiff
`s own acts or
`the accident"
`omissions
`were
`the sole cause of
`(Blake
`v.
`1 N.Y.3d
`Neighborhood
`Hous.
`Servs.
`of N.Y
`City,
`280,
`289 n 8, 771 N.Y.S.2d
`484, 803 N.E.2d
`757; see Bermejo
`& Hosps.
`119 A.D.3d
`v. New York City Health
`Corp.,
`502, 989 N.Y.S.2d
`490).
`The
`sole proximate
`cause
`500,
`defense
`applies
`where
`the
`as
`a
`plaintiff,
`acting
`worker,"
`"recalcitrant
`misused
`an otherwise
`proper
`safety
`chose
`to use an **143
`inadequate
`device
`device,
`safety
`or
`failed
`to
`when
`proper
`devices were
`available,
`readily
`use any device when
`proper
`devices
`were
`available
`(see
`v. East Med. Ctr., LP, 6 N.Y.3d
`550, 555, 814
`Robinson
`N.Y.S.2d
`589, 847 N.E.2d
`v. Federal
`1162; Montgomery
`4 N.Y.3d
`795 N.Y.S.2d
`Express
`Corp.,
`805,
`806,
`490,
`828 N.E.2d
`592; Melendez
`v. 778 Park Ave. Bldg. Corp.,
`153 A.D.3d
`700, 701, 59 N.Y.S.3d
`v. 64
`762; Saavedra
`137 A.D.3d
`26 N.Y.S.3d
`AnnJield
`Ct. Corp.,
`771,
`772,
`is
`346). Contributory
`negligence
`on the part of
`the worker
`not a defense
`to a Labor
`Law § 240(1)
`cause of action
`(see Blake
`v. Neighborhood
`Hous. Servs.
`of N.Y
`City,
`N.Y.3d
`at 286, 771 N.Y.S.2d
`484, 803 N.E.2d
`757).
`
`1
`
`of
`facie
`a prima
`made
`plaintiff
`the
`MHere,
`shcwing
`law on the issue of
`as a matter
`of
`to judgment
`entitlement
`Law § 240(1)
`on the Labor
`cause of action,
`liability
`by
`on which
`he was
`that
`the
`ladder
`evidence
`submitting
`for no apparent
`standing moved
`him to
`reason,
`causing
`fall
`(see Cabrera
`v. Arrow
`Steel Window
`163
`Corp.,
`A.D.3d
`82 N.Y.S.3d
`444; Alvarez
`v. Vingsan
`758,
`L.P.,
`150 A.D.3d
`1177, 57 N.Y.S.3d
`160; Goodwin
`v. Dix Hills
`144 A.D.3d
`41 N.Y.S.3d
`Jewish
`Ctr.,
`744,
`747,
`104;
`140 A.D.3d
`Baugh
`v. New York City Sch. Constr.
`Auth.,
`1105, 33 N.Y.S.3d
`472; LaGiudice
`v. Sleepy's
`1104,
`Inc.,
`67 A.D.3d
`969, 971, 890 N.Y.S.2d
`564).
`In opposition
`to
`the plaintiff
`s prima
`facie showing,
`the defendant
`failed
`to
`raise
`a triable
`issue
`of
`fact
`as to whether
`the plaintiff
`s
`the sole prnrimate
`own
`acts or omissions
`were
`cause of
`his
`injuries
`v. Neighborhood
`(see Blake
`Hous.
`Servs.
`of
`1 N.Y.3d
`280, 771 N.Y.S.2d
`803 N.E.2d
`N.Y. City,
`484,
`126 A.D.3d
`v. 250 Park Ave., LLC,
`747, 5
`757;
`cf Daley
`N.Y.S.3d
`267).
`to
`the
`defendant's
`*1223
`Contrary
`
`plaintiFs
`the
`of
`deposition
`the
`contention,
`testimony
`the plaintiff
`after
`the acadet,
`cowerker
`ng that,
`i=ply
`had set
`the
`might
`have told the coworker
`that
`the plaintiff
`true, would
`ladder
`up on top
`of a drop
`even
`if
`cloth,
`a
`render
`the
`plaintiff
`negligent,
`only
`contributorily
`defense
`not
`available
`under
`Labor
`Law
`(see
`§ 240(1)
`1
`of N.Y.
`Blake
`v. Neighborhood
`Hous.
`Servs.
`City,
`484, 803 N.E.2d
`N.Y.3d
`at 286, 771 N.Y.S.2d
`757; Morin
`4 A.D.3d
`772 N.Y.S.2d
`388).
`v. Machnick
`Bldrs.,
`668,
`For
`these reasons,
`and in light
`of our determination
`that
`the plaintiff
`was entitled
`to dismissal
`of
`the eighth
`and
`defenses
`that
`the action was
`asserting
`pr=E:is
`exclusive
`of
`the
`the
`under
`remedy
`Compensation
`that
`branch
`of
`the
`Law,
`s cross motion
`which was for summary
`judgment
`plaintiff
`on the issue of
`on the Labor
`Law § 240(1)
`cause
`liability
`of action
`should
`have been granted
`in its entirety.
`
`ninth A 'ive
`
`barred
`Workers'
`
`The parties'
`academic,
`determination.
`
`r-aining
`or
`need
`
`are without
`contentions
`not
`be
`reached
`in
`light
`
`merit,
`of
`
`are
`our
`
`MASTRO,
`
`J.P., COHEN,
`
`MALTESE
`
`and LASALLE,
`
`JJ.,
`
`DECISION
`
`& ORDER ON MOTION
`
`on an appeal
`by the respaadet-appellant
`Cross motion
`of
`the Supreme
`and cross
`appeal
`from an order
`Court,
`September
`Westchester
`dated
`to
`County,
`23,
`2016,
`on the ground
`that
`dismiss
`the
`appeal
`the order
`is not
`appealable
`as of
`right
`the
`appenant-respondent.
`by
`By
`this Court
`of
`decision
`and order
`on motion
`dated January
`the cross motion
`that branch
`of
`which
`was to
`27, 2017,
`the appeal was held in abeyance
`dismiss
`and referred
`to a
`deterraina*
`a
`appeal
`for
`of
`Panel
`Justices
`the
`hearing
`thereof.
`upon the argument
`or submission
`
`in support
`filed
`the papers
`Upon
`opposition
`in
`papers
`filed
`the
`it
`is
`argument
`the appeals,
`
`of
`
`the cross motion
`of
`and
`upon
`thereto,
`
`and
`the
`
`ORDERED
`**144
`which was to dismiss
`
`of
`the branch
`the
`that
`is denied.
`the appeal
`
`cross motion
`
`WESTLAW
`
`© 2019
`
`Thomson
`
`Reuters.
`
`No claim to original
`
`U.S. Govemment
`
`Works.
`
`11
`
`

`

`FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 01/15/2020 06:04 PM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 147
`
`INDEX NO. 011187/2016
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/15/2020
`
`Salinas
`97 N.Y.S.3d
`
`v. 64 Jefferson
`LLC, 170 A.D.3d
`Apar+meMs,
`136, 2019 N.Y. Slip Op. 02370
`
`1216 (2019)
`
`DECISION
`
`& ORDRR ON MOTION
`
`*1224 Upon
`the
`papers
`
`the papers
`filed
`in
`
`in support
`filed
`opposition
`thereto,
`
`of
`
`the motion
`and
`upon
`
`and
`the
`
`Points
`to strike
`by the appellant-respondent
`Motion
`III,
`IV, and V of
`brief
`on an
`the respondent-appellant's
`reply
`the Supreme Court,
`appeal
`and cross appeal
`from an order
`on the
`Westchester
`dated September
`23, 2016,
`County,
`contain
`improper
`ground
`that
`the material
`in those points
`of
`arguments.
`By decision
`and order
`on motion
`surreply
`this Court
`dated August
`that branch
`of
`the cross
`29, 2017,
`motion
`which
`was
`to dismiss
`the
`appeal
`was
`held
`in
`abeyance
`and referred
`to a panel
`of Justices
`the
`hearing
`appeal
`for
`determination
`upon
`the
`argument
`or
`submission
`thereof.
`
`ORDERED
`
`that
`
`the motion
`
`is denied.
`
`All Citanens
`
`170 A.D.3d
`02370
`
`1216, 97 N.Y.S.3d
`
`136, 2019 N.Y.
`
`Slip Op.
`
`End of DGcümêñt
`
`© 2019 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.
`
`wEST L Aw
`
`© 2019
`
`Thomson
`
`Reuters.
`
`No claim to original
`
`U.S. Govemment
`
`Works.
`
`12
`
`

`

`FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 01/15/2020 06:04 PM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 147
`
`INDEX NO. 011187/2016
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/15/2020
`
`Buchner
`v. Pines Hotel,
`448 N.Y.S.2d
`870
`
`Inc., 87 A.D.2d
`
`691 (1982)
`
`KeyCite Yellow Flag - Negative Treatment
`Disagreement Recognized by Volb v. G.E. Capital Corp., N.J., January
`24, 1995
`
`Supreme
`
`691
`87 A.D.2d
`Appellate
`Division,
`Court,
`New York.
`Department,
`
`Third
`
`2 Cases that cite this headnote
`
`defendant
`engaged
`underlying
`Compensation
`
`plaintif"s
`and
`at
`venture
`in a joint
`necident
`umnaey's
`Law § 11.
`
`were
`employer
`the
`of
`the time
`Workers'
`
`Barry
`
`BUCHNER,
`
`PINES
`
`HOTEL,
`
`Respondent,
`
`v.
`INC., Appellant.
`
`March
`
`11, 1982.
`
`(21
`
`Workers'
`
`Compensation
`What Persons
`Liable
`
`as Third Persons
`
`Synopsis
`from an
`action
`in personal
`by defendant
`On appeal
`injury
`Special
`Sullivan
`the Supreme
`order
`of
`County,
`Court,
`for
`J., which
`defaadant's
`motion
`denied
`Term, Williams,
`the
`judgment
`after
`of an issue
`of
`trial
`fact,
`summary
`that
`Supreme
`Appellate
`held
`that given
`Court,
`Division,
`its affirmative
`defendant
`had the burden
`of es±1i±i;.3
`workers'
`were
`defense
`compensation
`benefits
`that
`dafaadant
`and
`plaintiff
`exclusive
`because
`s
`remedy
`at
`the
`plaintiff
`s employer
`were engaged
`in a joint
`venture
`not be said
`time
`sustained
`his
`it could
`plai=M
`injuries,
`questions
`of
`that
`the trial
`court, which was presented
`with
`erred in concluding
`and conflicting
`inferences,
`credibility
`and
`that
`no
`venture
`between
`defendant
`joint
`existed
`owned
`plaintiff
`s
`which
`was
`a wholly
`employer,
`the defendant.
`of
`subsidiary
`
`Order
`
`agirmed-
`
`J. P.,
`Sweeney,
`J., concurred.
`
`filed
`
`a dissenting
`
`opinion
`
`in which
`
`Kane,
`
`West Hea