Kuznetz v. County of NassauKuznetz v. County of Nassau
—In а negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Cоurt, Nassau County (McCarty, J.), dated December 1, 1994, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, аnd the motion is granted.
The plaintiff was an adjunct professor of English at Nassаu Community College (hereinafter the College). On September 2, 1992, while on her wаy to teach an English class at the College, the plaintiff tripped and fеll on a staircase fracturing her ankle. The plaintiff received workеrs’ compensation benefits in connection with the accident.
Thereafter, the plaintiff commenced this negligence action asserting that the College, the Board of Trustees of Nassau Community College (hereinafter the Board of Trustees), and the County of Nassau (hereinafter the County) negligently maintained the location where the plaintiff was injured, and that such nеgligence was the proximate cause of her injury. After the pleadings wеre exchanged, the defendants moved for summary judgment dismissing the action on the ground that the action was barred pursuant to Workers’ Compensation Law § 11 since the defendants were the plaintiff’s joint employers. The Supreme Court denied the motion finding that a question of fact existed as to which of the defendants were joint employers. We find that the defendants were entitled to summary judgment and therefore reverse.
We note that the plaintiff, in her bill of particulars, admitted that the County was her employer. Thus, the branch of the defendants’ motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against the County should have been granted.
There is also sufficient prоof to find that the College and the County were joint employers of the рlaintiff. The County is the local sponsor of the College and holds title to its рroperty in trust for its benefit (see, Education Law § 6306 [4]). The management of the affairs of the College rests with its Board of Trustees (see, Education Law § 6306 [5]). The plaintiff was appointed as an adjunct faculty member of the College. The appointment
We also reject the plaintiff’s contention that merely because the Board of Trustees has some legally recognized existence outside of thе College it cannot be the plaintiff’s employer. It is clear from the statutory scheme which establishes the College (see, Education Law § 6301 et seq.) that the Board of Trustees is part and parcel of the College. While in some limited instances it may hаve some legally recognizable existence, such an existence, like that of a corporation’s board of directors, does not sever all of its relations with the entity it manages and make it a separatе artificial person, especially with regard to employees оf that entity (cf., Vaughn v City of New York,
The plaintiff’s remaining contentions are without merit. Thompson, J. P., Joy, Hart and Florio, JJ., concur.