You are here: / / PHOTOGRAPHER WAS AN INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR NOT AN EMPLOYEE, NO VICARIOUS LIABILITY ...
,

PHOTOGRAPHER WAS AN INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR NOT AN EMPLOYEE, NO VICARIOUS LIABILITY FOR INJURY CAUSED BY PHOTOGRAPHER.

The Second Department determined a wedding photographer (Kataiev) was an independent contractor and the company which hired him (HR) could not be vicariously liable for injuries to plaintiff allegedly caused by the photographer:

“The general rule is that an employer who hires an independent contractor is not liable for the independent contractor’s negligent acts” … . “The determination of whether an employer-employee relationship exists turns on whether the alleged employer exercises control over the results produced, or the means used to achieve the results. Control over the means is the more important consideration” … . “Factors relevant to assessing control include whether the worker (1) worked at his own convenience, (2) was free to engage in other employment, (3) received fringe benefits, (4) was on the employer’s payroll and (5) was on a fixed schedule” … . ” [I]ncidental control over the results produced without further indicia of control over the means employed to achieve the results will not constitute substantial evidence of an employer-employee relationship'”… .

Here, HR demonstrated, prima facie, that Kataiev was hired as an independent contractor. The transcripts of the deposition testimony submitted in support of HR’s motion established that HR hired Kataiev only for the wedding, that HR did not provide Kataiev with health insurance, that HR did not provide Kataiev with a W-2 form, that Kataiev used his own equipment at the wedding, that HR paid Kataiev in cash, and that HR did not withhold Social Security taxes or employment taxes from the money paid to Kataiev … . Additionally, the evidence submitted by HR demonstrated, prima facie, that HR exercised only minimal or incidental control over Kataiev’s work … . Weinfeld v HR Photography, Inc., 2017 NY Slip Op 03038, 2nd Dept 4-19-17

EMPLOYMENT LAW (VICARIOUS LIABILITY, PHOTOGRAPHER WAS AN INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR NOT AN EMPLOYEE, NO VICARIOUS LIABILITY FOR INJURY CAUSED BY PHOTOGRAPHER)/NEGLIGENCE (EMPLOYMENT LAW, PHOTOGRAPHER WAS AN INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR NOT AN EMPLOYEE, NO VICARIOUS LIABILITY FOR INJURY CAUSED BY PHOTOGRAPHER)/VICARIOUS LIABILITY (EMPLOYMENT LAW, PHOTOGRAPHER WAS AN INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR NOT AN EMPLOYEE, NO VICARIOUS LIABILITY FOR INJURY CAUSED BY PHOTOGRAPHER)

You might also like
DEFENDANT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADJUDICATED A SECOND FELONY OFFENDER BASED ON A LOUISIANA CONVICTION FOR AN OFFENSE WHICH IS NOT A FELONY IN NEW YORK (SECOND DEPT). ​
PLAINTIFF, A FLORIDA RESIDENT, ALLEGEDLY WAS ABUSED BY A PRIEST IN FLORIDA IN 1983 AND 1984; PLAINTIFF SUED THE DIOCESE OF BROOKLYN BECAUSE THE PRIEST WHO ALLEGEDLY ABUSED HIM WAS TRANSFERRED FROM BROOKLYN TO FLORIDA, ALLEGEDLY BECAUSE OF SEXUAL MISCONDUCT WITH CHILDREN; THE CHILD VICTIMS ACT DOES NOT APPLY TO THE NONRESIDENT PLAINTIFF AND THE BORROWING STATUTE DOES APPLY; THEREFORE FLORIDA’S FOUR-YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS RENDERED PLAINTIFF’S ACTION TIME-BARRED (SECOND DEPT). ​
Handling Of Consecutive Sentences Under the Drug Law Reform Act Explained
THE MEDICAL CENTER WAS ENTITLED TO THE NO-FAULT INSURANCE BENEFITS ASSIGNED TO IT BY THE PEDESTRIAN INJURED BY PLAINTIFF’S TAXI; THE FACT THAT THE PEDESTRIAN HAD SETTLED HIS ACTION AGAINST THE PLAINTIFF TAXI COMPANY DID NOT HAVE ANY BEARING ON THE PLAINTIFF’S OBLIGATION TO PAY THE NO-FAULT BENEFITS TO THE MEDICAL CENTER (SECOND DEPT).
CO-OP DISCRIMINATED AGAINST THE DISABLED COMPLAINANT BY REFUSING TO ALLOW HER TO KEEP A DOG IN HER APARTMENT (SECOND DEPT).
WAIVED DEFENSE CAN BE INTERPOSED IN AN ANSWER AMENDED BY LEAVE OF COURT.
THE INSTRUCTION THAT MOTHER NOT “EXPOSE” THE CHILD TO ACTIVITIES NOT IN KEEPING WITH THE CHILD’S FAITH, WHICH IMPLICITLY REQUIRED THAT THE CHILD NOT BE “EXPOSED” TO MOTHER’S LGBTQ IDENTITY, IS NOT ENFORCEABLE (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF WAS PROVIDED WITH A LADDER WITHOUT RUBBER FEET WHICH SLID CAUSING PLAINTIFF TO FALL; PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION PROPERLY GRANTED (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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

COURT REJECTS ARGUMENT DEFENDANT DID NOT CONSENT TO THE RELEASE TO THE PROSECUTION... BIOLOGICAL FATHER ESTOPPED FROM ASSERTING PATERNITY.