## Facts

- Curtis Brown sued Henry Micheletti and Micheletti’s employer, Castagna & Son, Inc., seeking damages for personal injuries allegedly caused by negligence.
- Defendants pleaded New York Workers’ Compensation Law exclusivity as an affirmative defense, asserting Brown’s sole remedy was workers’ compensation because he was their employee (including under a “special employee” theory).
- In pretrial motion practice, Brown sought dismissal of the workers’ compensation defense; the court denied the motion due to triable issues but permitted renewal at trial.
- After a jury was empaneled, Brown renewed the motion; the parties could not stipulate to enough facts to resolve the defense.
- The trial court held a preliminary evidentiary hearing outside the jury’s presence on disputed facts bearing on the workers’ compensation bar.
- Following the hearing, the trial court struck the workers’ compensation defense and denied defendants’ motions to dismiss; it stayed the trial pending appeal.

## Issues

1. Whether defendants proved an employment relationship (including special employment) making workers’ compensation Brown’s exclusive remedy and barring the negligence action.
2. Whether the trial court could resolve the workers’ compensation exclusivity defense during trial through a hearing outside the jury and then strike the defense and deny dismissal.

## Decision

- The Appellate Division affirmed the trial court’s order.
- The evidence supported the determination that Brown’s personal injury action was not barred by the workers’ compensation defense.
- The court did not reverse based on the trial court’s use of a preliminary evidentiary hearing to decide the threshold defense.

## Legal Principles

- Workers’ compensation exclusivity is an affirmative defense; the defendant bears the burden to establish an employment relationship that triggers the bar.
- Whether an injured worker is a “special employee” is a fact-driven inquiry commonly turning on indicia of employment, including the putative employer’s authority to direct and control the work.
- If the evidence supports a finding that the plaintiff was not the defendant’s employee for workers’ compensation purposes, the common-law tort action may proceed and the exclusivity defense may be stricken.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed the striking of the workers’ compensation exclusivity defense because the evidentiary record supported the finding that Brown was not defendants’ employee (including as a special employee), so the negligence action was not barred.


Brown v. Micheletti, 97 A.D.2d 529, 468 N.Y.S.2d 160 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep’t 1983)