You are here: / / DRIVER AND CAR OWNER WERE NOT EMPLOYEES OF CAR SERVICE, CAR SERVICE THEREFORE...
,

DRIVER AND CAR OWNER WERE NOT EMPLOYEES OF CAR SERVICE, CAR SERVICE THEREFORE NOT LIABLE FOR ACCIDENT UNDER DOCTRINE OF RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR.

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendants Tuapanta and Hanif (driver and owner of the car involved in an accident) were not employees of defendant car service, Church Ave. Therefore the car service was not liable to plaintiff passenger:

Here, Church Ave established, prima facie, that Tuapanta and Hanif were independent contractors, not its employees. The evidence submitted by Church Ave showed that it is a licensed livery base station in the business of dispatching for-hire vehicles. Specifically, Church Ave receives calls from customers seeking transportation services and then dispatches such calls to drivers of vehicles affiliated with it. Church Ave further demonstrated that it does not own the vehicles to which it dispatches calls and that it does not provide any services to drivers other than transmitting a customer’s request for transportation services. Drivers are responsible for their own schedules, choosing when to turn on their two-way radios and deciding which dispatches to accept. Drivers are free to provide their services to other car services and they retain all of the monies paid by the customers. Drivers pay Church Ave $100 per week to use the service. Church Ave does not provide a salary to the drivers, nor does it provide them with any tax forms. Drivers are also responsible for maintaining their own insurance. There were no written agreements or meetings between the drivers and Church Ave, nor did Church Ave provide any manuals, policies, or procedures for the drivers outside of establishing prices. Under these circumstances, Church Ave established, prima facie, that it did not exercise sufficient control to give rise to liability under the doctrine of respondeat superior … . Castro-Quesada v Tuapanta, 2017 NY Slip Op 02014, 2nd Dept 3-22-17

EMPLOYMENT LAW (DRIVER AND CAR OWNER WERE NOT EMPLOYEES OF CAR SERVICE, CAR SERVICE THEREFORE NOT LIABLE FOR ACCIDENT UNDER DOCTRINE OF RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR)/RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR (DRIVER AND CAR OWNER WERE NOT EMPLOYEES OF CAR SERVICE, CAR SERVICE THEREFORE NOT LIABLE FOR ACCIDENT UNDER DOCTRINE OF RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR)/INDEPENCENT CONTRACTOR (DRIVER AND CAR OWNER WERE NOT EMPLOYEES OF CAR SERVICE, CAR SERVICE THEREFORE NOT LIABLE FOR ACCIDENT UNDER DOCTRINE OF RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR)/NEGLIGENCE (RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR, DRIVER AND CAR OWNER WERE NOT EMPLOYEES OF CAR SERVICE, CAR SERVICE THEREFORE NOT LIABLE FOR ACCIDENT UNDER DOCTRINE OF RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR)

You might also like
A Three-and-a-Half-Foot Fall from a Railing to a Raised Platform Was Covered by Labor Law 240(1)–Elements of Labor Law 240(1), 200 and 246(1) Causes of Action Explained—Failure to State (in the Pleadings) the Particular Industrial Code Provision Alleged to Have Been Violated Was Not Fatal to the Labor Law 246(1) Cause of Action—Belated Identification of the Code Provision Did Not Prejudice Defendant
THE MOTION TO DISMISS ALLEGATIONS OF MEDICAL MALPRACTICE PRIOR TO APRIL 2013 AS TIME-BARRED WAS PROPERLY GRANTED BECAUSE THE CONTINUOUS TREATMENT DOCTRINE DID NOT APPLY; THERE WAS A SUBSTANTIVE DISSENT ARGUING THAT DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED BY THE DEFENDANTS SUPPORTED APPLYING THE CONTINUOUS TREATMENT DOCTRINE AND THE MATTER SHOULD PROCEED TO DISCOVERY (SECOND DEPT).
Foreign Corporation’s Sole Residence for Venue Purposes Is the County Designated In Its Filed Application to Conduct Business in New York State
Affidavits and Text Messages Do Not Constitute “Documentary Evidence” In the Context of a Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(1)
IF THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS RUNS OUT ON A SATURDAY, PLAINTIFF HAS UNTIL THE FOLLOWING MONDAY TO COMMENCE THE ACTION (SECOND DEPT).
TRANSIT AUTHORITY’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS BUS PASSENGER’S SUDDEN STOP INJURY CASE PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304 AND THE MORTGAGE IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION (SECOND DEPT).
ADJOURNMENT IN CONTEMPLATION OF DISMISSAL WHICH HAS RESULTED IN DISMISSAL IS NOT APPEALABLE (SECOND DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

DRIVER AND CAR OWNER WERE NOT EMPLOYEES OF CAR SERVICE, CAR SERVICE THEREFORE... DRIVER AND CAR OWNER WERE NOT EMPLOYEES OF CAR SERVICE, CAR SERVICE THEREFORE...