Raja v. Big Geyser, Inc.
| Decision Date | 30 November 2016 |
| Parties | Yasir RAJA, appellant, v. BIG GEYSER, INC., respondent, et al., defendant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
144 A.D.3d 1123
42 N.Y.S.3d 288
2016 N.Y. Slip Op. 08059
Yasir RAJA, appellant,
v.
BIG GEYSER, INC., respondent, et al., defendant.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Nov. 30, 2016.
The Orlow Firm (Judah Z. Cohen, PLLC, Woodmere, N.Y., of counsel), for appellant.
James J. Toomey, New York, N.Y. (Michael J. Kozoriz of counsel), for respondent.
L. PRISCILLA HALL, J.P., SANDRA L. SGROI, BETSY BARROS, and FRANCESCA E. CONNOLLY, JJ.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Walker, J.), dated May 29, 2015, as granted that branch of the motion of the defendant Big Geyser, Inc., which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
The plaintiff allegedly sustained personal injuries when the vehicle that he was operating was struck by a truck operated by the defendant Andre Cruz and owned by Cruz's employer, nonparty Dynasty Distributors, Inc. (hereinafter Dynasty). In a prior personal injury action commenced by the plaintiff against Dynasty, the Supreme Court, Kings County, by order dated February 14, 2013, granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment against Dynasty on the issue of liability. Thereafter, on June 28, 2013, the plaintiff commenced this action against Cruz and the defendant Big Geyser, Inc. (hereinafter Big Geyser), a “master distributor” that had a “distributor
agreement” with Dynasty. The plaintiff alleged, inter alia, that at the time of the accident, Cruz was an employee of Big Geyser.
Big Geyser moved, inter alia, for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. The Supreme Court granted the motion and the plaintiff appeals.
“The general rule is that an employer who hires an independent contractor is not liable...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cioffi v. S.M. Foods, Inc.
...744, 602 N.Y.S.2d 325, 621 N.E.2d 692 ; DeMartino v. 3858, Inc. , 114 A.D.3d 634, 636, 979 N.Y.S.2d 648 ; cf. Raja v. Big Geyser, Inc. , 144 A.D.3d 1123, 1124, 42 N.Y.S.3d 288 ). The evidence also failed to eliminate all questions of fact as to whether RMI was the alter ego of GFI (see DeMa......
-
McHale v. Metro. Life Ins. Co.
...or the means used to achieve the results. Control over the means is the more important consideration’ " ( Raja v. Big Geyser, Inc., 144 A.D.3d 1123, 1124, 42 N.Y.S.3d 288, quoting Abouzeid v. Grgas, 295 A.D.2d 376, 377, 743 N.Y.S.2d 165 ). However, "[i]ncidental control over the results pro......
-
Weinfeld v. HR Photography, Inc.
...to achieve the results will not constitute substantial evidence of an employer-employee relationship’ " (Raja v. Big Geyser, Inc., 144 A.D.3d 1123, 1124, 42 N.Y.S.3d 288, quoting Matter of Ted Is Back Corp. [Roberts], 64 N.Y.2d 725, 726, 485 N.Y.S.2d 742, 475 N.E.2d 113 ). Here, HR demonstr......
-
Colon v. Compass Grp. USA, Inc.
...relationship’ " ( Weinfeld v. HR Photography, Inc., 149 A.D.3d 1014, 1015, 52 N.Y.S.3d 458, quoting Raja v. Big Geyser, Inc., 144 A.D.3d 1123, 1124, 42 N.Y.S.3d 288 [internal quotation marks omitted] ). Here, we agree with the Supreme Court's determination that the defendant established, pr......