You are here: / / PLAINTIFF IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE ALLEGED DEFENDANT DRIVER WAS DEFENDANT...
, ,

PLAINTIFF IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE ALLEGED DEFENDANT DRIVER WAS DEFENDANT COMPANY’S EMPLOYEE AND WAS ACTING WITHIN THE SCOPE OF EMPLOYMENT AT THE TIME OF THE ACCIDENT; DEFENDANT COMPANY FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE THE DRIVER WAS AN INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR, NOT AN EMPLOYEE; THE FACT THAT THE EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT USES THE TERM “INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR” IS NOT DISPOSITIVE OF THE ISSUE (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant employer in this traffic accident case did not demonstrate the defendant driver was an independent contractor as opposed to an employee acting within the scope of employment:

… [Plaintiff] allegedly was injured when a vehicle he was operating collided with a vehicle owned and operated by the defendant Luis F. Leal. * * * The plaintiffs alleged … that Leal was [defendant] Publishers’ employee, and that Leal was acting within the scope of his employment at the time of the accident. …

“The doctrine of respondeat superior renders a master vicariously liable for a tort committed by his [or her] servant within the scope of employment. Conversely, the general rule is that an employer who hires an independent contractor is not liable for the independent contractor’s negligent acts” … . “[T]he critical inquiry in determining whether an employment relationship exists pertains to the degree of control exercised by the purported employer over the results produced or the means used to achieve the results” … . “Factors relevant to assessing control include whether the worker (1) worked at his [or her] 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” … . “The fact that a contract exists designating a person as an independent contractor is to be considered, but is not dispositive” … . Whether an actor is an independent contractor or an employee is usually a factual issue for a jury … . Brielmeier v Leal, 2024 NY Slip Op 02163, Second Dept 4-24-24

Practice Point: An employer may be responsible for the negligence of an employee, but is not responsible for the negligence of an independent contractor. The fact that the employment contract uses the term “independent contractor” is not dispositive. The relevant criteria are explained.

 

You might also like
THE FACT THAT DEFENDANT’S REPRESENTATIVE’S SIGNATURE AND THE JURAT APPEARED ON AN OTHERWISE BLANK PAGE SEPARATE FROM THE AFFIDAVIT WAS NOT A GROUND FOR DENIAL OF DEFENDANT’S UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT’S ABSENCE FROM AN IN CAMERA INTERVIEW WITH A JUROR CONCERNING POSSIBLE DISQUALIFICATION WAS NOT SHOWN TO HAVE HAD A SUBSTANTIAL EFFECT ON THE DEFENDANT’S ABILITY TO DEFEND AGAINST THE CHARGES (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT WAS NOT INFORMED OF THE PERIOD OF POSTRELEASE SUPERVISION AT THE TIME OF THE GUILTY PLEA; PLEA VACATED (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT, WHO WAS DELIVERING MEALS ON WHEELS IN DEFENDANT’S BUILDING WHEN HE WAS ASSAULTED, ALLEGED THE ASSAILANT WAS AN INTRUDER WHO ENTERED THE BUILDING THROUGH A NEGLIGENTLY MAINTAINED ENTRANCE, THE LANDLORD’S DUTY TO PROTECT TENANTS EXTENDS TO GUESTS OF TENANTS, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
STUDENT ASSUMED THE RISK OF BEING STRUCK BY A BASEBALL.
Defect Properly Found Trivial As a Matter of Law
HERE MOTHER’S CONCLUSORY AFFIDAVIT CLAIMING SHE WAS NOT SERVED WITH THE SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT BUT RATHER FOUND THE PAPERS ON THE GROUND IN FRONT OF THE FRONT DOOR WAS CONCLUSORY AND INSUFFICIENT TO REBUT THE PROCESS SERVER’S AFFIDAVIT; THEREFORE NO HEARING SHOULD HAVE BEEN HELD AND THE COMPLAINT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).
NOTIFICATION OF AN INTENTION TO CANCEL AN AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE POLICY IF A QUESTIONNAIRE IS NOT SUBMITTED IS NOT A VALID CANCELLATION, THE POLICY REMAINED IN EFFECT DESPITE THE INSURED’S FAILURE TO SUBMIT THE QUESTIONNAIRE (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

CHARTER SCHOOLS ARE NOT SUBJECT TO THE NOTICE OF CLAIM REQUIREMENTS IN THE EDUCATION... PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED WHEN A PIECE OF WIRE STRUCK HIS EYE WHEN HE WAS USING...