TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Jeffords v. Professional Builders/Remodelers Group, Inc.

Roger Jeffords v. Professional Builders/Remodelers Group, Inc., a Division of Avmal Construction Corporation

Jeffords v. Pro. Builders/Remodelers Group, Inc., 186 A.D.2d 989 (1992)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · State Appellate Courts
Decided
October 7, 1992
Citations
186 A.D.2d 989588 N.Y.S.2d 4521992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11513

Opinion of the Court

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

— Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Plaintiff commenced this action seeking damages for injuries he suffered when he fell off the roof of a private residence under construction. Supreme Court properly granted defendant Professional Builders’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. The evidence clearly demonstrates that plaintiff was a special employee of Professional Builders at the time of his accident and injury (see, Lesanti v Harmac Indus., 175 AD2d 664 ; Jeras v East Mfg. Corp., 168 AD2d 889 ). On the key factors of control and direction of the work, it is uncontroverted that plaintiff reported to the Professional Builders job site on the days and at the times directed by the Professional Builders’ foreman; that the foreman signed plaintiff’s time sheets; that the foreman told plaintiff what work he was to perform; and that Professional Builders supplied the equipment and tools for that work. Further, no representative of the general employer, Pilot Temporaries, was present at the job site, and Professional Builders had the sole right to control plaintiff’s work at that job site. Thus, as a matter of law, plaintiff was in the special employ of Professional Builders at the time of his accident. (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Whelan, J. — Summary Judgment.) Present — Denman, P. J., Boomer, Balio, Lawton and Fallon, JJ.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1992: 11994: 11996: 219922026peak 1996 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Claim of Shoemaker v. Manpower, Inc.223 A.D.2d 787 (1996)
  2. Degruchy v. Xerox Corp.188 A.D.2d 1003 (1992)
  3. Gadley v. U.S. Sugar Co.210 A.D.2d 983 (1994) · Dissent
  4. Richmond v. BMC Industries, Inc.226 A.D.2d 1063 (1996)

Most recent

  1. Richmond v. BMC Industries, Inc.226 A.D.2d 1063 (1996)
  2. Claim of Shoemaker v. Manpower, Inc.223 A.D.2d 787 (1996)
  3. Gadley v. U.S. Sugar Co.210 A.D.2d 983 (1994) · Dissent
  4. Degruchy v. Xerox Corp.188 A.D.2d 1003 (1992)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 2

DepthCaseCited by
Lesanti v. Harmac Indus., 175 A.D.2d 664 (1991) 17
Jeras v. East Mfg. Corp., 168 A.D.2d 889 (1990) 4

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list