You are here: / / THERE IS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF WAS DEFENDANT’S EMPLOYEE...
,

THERE IS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF WAS DEFENDANT’S EMPLOYEE SUCH THAT THE PROTECTIONS OF THE LABOR LAW APPLY IN THIS LADDER-FALL CASE; DEFENDANT AGREED TO FIX PLAINTIFF’S CAR IN RETURN FOR PLAINTIFF’S FIXING THE ROOF OF DEFENDANT’S REPAIR SHOP (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined there was a question of fact whether the relationship between defendant Houghtaling and plaintiff was an “employment” relationship such that the Labor Law applies to plaintiff’s fall from a ladder. Houghtaling agreed to repair plaintiff’s car in return for plaintiff’s seal-coating the roof of defendant’s automotive repair ship. Houghtaling argued plaintiff was a “volunteer,” not an employee:

… [T]he defendants failed to eliminate triable issues of fact as to whether the plaintiff was a hired worker entitled to the protections of the Labor Law. Houghtaling, who owned and operated the repair shop, testified at his deposition that a friend of the plaintiff had approached him about helping the plaintiff, who was “down and out,” by fixing the plaintiff’s car. Houghtaling responded that the plaintiff should bring in his car and that he would “do the best that [he] c[ould], like [he did] for everybody.” When the plaintiff came in, Houghtaling told him that the repairs would cost $900. The plaintiff asked what he could do for Houghtaling “in return.” According to Houghtaling, the roof of the shop had been leaking for five years and he had intended to fix the roof himself. Houghtaling told the plaintiff that he could seal coat the roof of the shop. Houghtaling performed the repairs on the plaintiff’s car at no charge, and the following weekend, the plaintiff began the work on the roof.

Under these circumstances, triable issues of fact remain as to whether the arrangement between the plaintiff and Houghtaling bore “the traditional hallmarks of an employment relationship” … , including a “mutual obligation . . . revealing an economic motivation for completing the task” and the employer’s right to decide “whether the task undertaken by the employee has been completed satisfactorily” … . Zampko v Houghtaling, 2025 NY Slip Op 04507, Second Dept 7-30-25

Practice Point: The protections of the Labor Law apply where there is a employment relationship between plaintiff and defendant. Here defendant agreed to fix plaintiff’s car in return for plaintiff’s repairing the repair shop’s roof. Plaintiff fell from a ladder when working on the roof. There was a question of fact whether the agreement created an employment relationship entitling plaintiff to the Labor Law protections.

 

You might also like
Succinct Description of Principles of Governmental Function Immunity
Criteria for Dismissal of a Complaint Pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(1) [Defense Based Upon Irrefutable Documentary Evidence] and CPLR 3211(a)(7) [Failure to State a Cause of Action] Explained
THE BANK FAILED TO PROVE STANDING TO FORECLOSE BECAUSE THE NECESSARY BUSINESS RECORDS WERE NOT ATTACHED TO THE FOUNDATIONAL AFFIDAVITS; HOWEVER, THE DEFENDANTS WERE NOT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT BECAUSE THEY FAILED TO AFFIRMATIVELY PROVE THE BANK DID NOT HAVE STANDING (SECOND DEPT)
“Transacting Business” Criteria for Long-Arm Jurisdiction Met
DEFENDANT PROPERTY OWNER DID NOT HAVE ACTUAL OR CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF ANY DEFECTS IN THE CEILING THAT FELL ON PLAINTIFFS; THE RES IPSA LOQUITUR DOCTRINE DID NOT APPLY BECAUSE DEFENDANTS DID NOT HAVE EXCLUSIVE CONTROL OVER THE CONDITION (SECOND DEPT).
PETITIONER, A JOURNALIST, UNDER THE ELECTION LAW, DID NOT HAVE THE CAPACITY OR STANDING TO EXAMINE 353 BALLOTS CAST IN THE PRIMARY ELECTION FOR QUEENS COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY, WHICH WAS WON BY ONLY 55 VOTES (SECOND DEPT).
COMPLAINT STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR LEGAL MALPRACTICE, MOTION TO DISMISS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT). ​
NO PRIVATE RIGHT OF ACTION UNDER NEW YORK’S MENTAL HEALTH PARITY LAW (TIMOTHY’S LAW) (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

CPLR 7003(1), WHICH REQUIRES A JUDGE TO FORFEIT $1000 FOR AN IMPROPER DENIAL... THE EXCLUSIONARY PROVISIONS IN THIS FIRE INSURANCE POLICY WERE AMBIGUOUS AND...