In Ramos v. M & F Fashions, Inc., 154 N.J. 583, 713 A.2d 486 (1998), petitioner was injured when he fell down the shaft of a freight elevator in the building in which his employer was a fourth-floor tenant. There was one other tenant on the fourth floor. The elevator was one of two means of access. The other means of access was a stairway. Use of either was by choice; petitioner commonly used the elevator, both to access and egress his employer's offices as well as during the day to transport the employer's materials. On the day of the accident, petitioner was in the process of using the elevator to access his work site at the beginning of the workday. In concluding petitioner's employer was responsible for workers' compensation benefits, the Court found that it "did, in fact, regularly use the freight elevator for business purposes," id. at 592, 713 A.2d 486, based upon the fact that its employees used the elevator to move its fabric and clothing between the ground floor and the fourth floor and used it for access and egress, ibid. The Court was satisfied the premises rule was met, as the employer had control of the elevator. It observed: Control in this context imports the notion of the capacity, ability or power to occupy, possess or use. There is no suggestion that control for one purpose does not authorize control for other purposes. Rather, when an employer uses a common area for business purposes, the common area is, by virtue of that use, subject to the employer's control and considered part of the employer's premises within the intendment of the Workers' Compensation Act. Id. at 592-93, 713 A.2d 486. The lack of exclusive use was not determinative. Id. at 593, 713 A.2d 486 ("the phrase in N.J.S.A. 34:15-36 'excluding areas not under the control of the employer' does not relate to concepts of exclusive control or duties of maintenance . . . but, rather, implies only use by the employer in the conduct of his business'") (quoting Cressey v. Campus Chefs, Div. of CVI Serv., Inc., 204 N.J. Super. 337, 343, 498 A.2d 1274 (App.Div.1985)). "It is the employer's conduct that determines whether it had control over a common area." Ramos, supra, 154 N.J. at 593, 713 A.2d 486.