Claim of Nallan v. Motion Picture Studio Mechanics Union, Local No. 52
Cases that cite this one
20 later published cases cite this decision.
- Griffiths v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board (Pa. 2008)
- McDonald v. Brunswick Electric Membership Corp. (N.C. Ct. App. 1985)
- Shuler v. Tri-County Electric Co-Op, Inc. (S.C. Ct. App. 2007)
- Ex Parte City of Guntersville v. Bishop (Ala. 1998)
- Mississippi Transp. Com'n v. Dewease (Miss. 1997)
- Bouge v. SDI Corp., Inc. (Colo. App. 1996)
- Crouch v. W. VA. WORKERS'COMP. COM'R (W. Va. 1991)
- Crouch v. West Virginia Workers' Compensation Commissioner (W. Va. 1991)
- R & T CONSTRUCTION CO. v. Judge (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 1990)
- Low Splint Coal Co., Inc. v. Bolling (Va. 1982)
- Matter of Buckner v. Buckner & Kourofsky, LLP (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2017)
- Claim of Rosa v. June Electrical Corp. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2016)
- Claim of Rosa v. June Electrical Corp. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2016)
- Rothenberg v. Erie Metal Stamping Co. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1994)
- Mississippi Transportation Commission v. Glover I. Dewease (Miss. 1993)
- Claim of Baker v. Wessel Duval, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1993)
- Claim of Haney v. Schiavone Construction (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1993)
- Claim of Manning v. Niagara Mohawk Power Corp. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1993)
- Langford v. Rogers (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1988)
- Nallan v. Union Labor Life Insurance (N.Y. 1977)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion
Memorandum. Under the instant facts it cannot be said that the respondent was an employee of the union at the time of the disabling incident. As a member of the union, he had been elected by the other union members to a position on the executive board but this certainly did not constitute employment. He received no compensation or salary for his functions as a board member other than a minimal stipend, ordered by the union’s by-laws, as reimbursement for expenses in connection with the board’s monthly meeting. The other services he *1044 rendered were gratuitous and intentionally so. There was no employment agreement between the appellant and the union. The union did not control his activities or have a right to discharge him from the board, nor were there any other indicia which would point to an employer-employee relationship.
Accordingly, the order of the Appellate Division should be reversed and the union should not be held liable for any portion of the award for compensation or nursing services.
Chief Judge Breitel and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Cooke concur.
Order reversed, with costs, and the claim against Motion Picture Studio Mechanics Union, Local No. 52, dismissed in a memorandum.
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.