You are here: / / IF DEFENDANT DRIVER, COCUZZO, WAS AN EMPLOYEE OF DEFENDANT RANDALL AT THE...
, ,

IF DEFENDANT DRIVER, COCUZZO, WAS AN EMPLOYEE OF DEFENDANT RANDALL AT THE TIME OF THE ACCIDENT, RANDALL WOULD BE VICARIOUSLY LIABLE; NOT SO IF COCUZZO WAS AN INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR; THE “EMPLOYER VS INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR” ISSUE MUST BE RESOLVED BY THE TRIER OF FACT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined whether defendant Randall Provisions, Inc. was vicariously liable for defendant Cocuzzo’ s traffic accident depended on a question of fact, i.e., whether Cocuzzo was an employee or an independent contractor. Therefore Randall’s motion for summary judgment should not have been granted:

Randall submitted, inter alia, transcripts of the deposition testimony of Cucuzzo and the deposition testimony of Gregory L. Randall, its principal. Cucuzzo and Gregory both testified that Randall paid Cucuzzo in cash, issued him a 1099 tax form at the end of the year, and did not provide him with any fringe benefits, as well as that Cucuzzo used his own vehicle to travel his merchandising route. These facts all weigh in favor of the conclusion that Cucuzzo was an independent contractor … . However, Randall’s submissions also included evidence indicating the existence of an employer-employee relationship. For example, Cucuzzo testified that Gregory gave him three Pepsi-branded t-shirts to wear while working for Randall … , and that Randall provided him with a daily stipend to reimburse him for gas mileage on top of his regular pay … . Cucuzzo also testified that, when he first began working for Randall, he received approximately two days of training from a Randall worker as to the company’s “way of doing” the merchandising work … . According to Cucuzzo, he regularly checked in with a Randall delivery driver to coordinate their respective work obligations and to ensure that Cucuzzo only reported to a store after the driver had delivered products … . Although his work days fluctuated from week to week, Cucuzzo and Gregory both testified that Gregory would provide Cucuzzo with his work schedule in advance … , as well as determine the list of stores that Cucuzzo was required to visit … . Gaudreau v Cucuzzo, 2025 NY Slip Op 03046, Second Dept 5-21-25

Practice Point: Here there was evidence the driver involved in the accident was an employee and there was evidence he was an independent contractor. If the driver was an employee, his employer would be vicariously liable, not so if the driver was an independent contractor. The issue must be resolved by the trier of fact.

 

You might also like
FAILURE TO OBJECT TO DISCOVERY DEMANDS REQUIRED THAT THE COURT GRANT THE MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY (SECOND DEPT).
A COURT MUST ACCEPT AN ARBITRATOR’S INTERPRETATION OF CONFLICTING EVIDENCE; BUT THE TERMINATION OF THE TEACHER, WHO HAD AN UNBLEMISHED RECORD, FOR INAPPROPRIATELY RESTRAINING A FEMALE STUDENT, SHOCKED ONE’S SENSE OF FAIRNESS (SECOND DEPT).
JUDGE WAS WITHOUT AUTHORITY TO DISMISS THE FORECLOSURE COMPLAINT; ISSUE HAD NOT BEEN JOINED AND THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE PLAINTIFF FAILED TO APPEAR AT A SCHEDULED CONFERENCE (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO EXTEND THE TIME TO SERVE THE DEFENDANT PURSUANT TO CPLR 306-B SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE; IF A PLAINTIFF IS NOT ENTITLED TO EXTEND TIME FOR GOOD CAUSE, THE COURT SHOULD GO ON TO CONSIDER WHETHER THE MOTION SHOULD BE GRANTED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (SECOND DEPT).
CITY’S POTENTIAL LIABILITY FOR THE ACTIONS OF A CITY BUS DRIVER WAS BASED ON RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR, THEREFORE A NEGLIGENT HIRING AND RETENTION ACTION WAS NOT VIABLE AND THE DRIVER’S PERSONNEL FILE WAS NOT DISCOVERABLE (SECOND DEPT).
Subcontractor Which Supervised Plaintiff’s Work Was An Agent for the General Contractor
MOTHER’S MOTION FOR FINDINGS ALLOWING HER CHILD TO PETITION FOR SPECIAL IMMIGRANT JUVENILE STATUS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED.
Online Promotion Which Offered a Coupon to Persons Who Provided His or Her Email Address Did Not Constitute an “Offer” Which Could Be “Accepted” to Create a Contract/In Light of the Disclaimers the Promotion Was Not “Deceptive” and Plaintiff Suffered No “Actual Injury” within the Meaning of the General Business Law

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

THE BANK’S UNILATERAL ATTEMPT TO REVOKE THE ACCELERATION OF THE DEBT IS... HERE MOTHER’S CONCLUSORY AFFIDAVIT CLAIMING SHE WAS NOT SERVED WITH THE...