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
Pedestrian Struck from Behind Was Not Comparatively Negligent as a Matter of Law
Verdict Set Aside as Irreconcilably Inconsistent (Jury Found Defective Sidewalk Was Not Proximate Cause of Plaintiff’s Fall)
PLAINTIFF, A HOMEOWNER WHOSE COMPANY HIRED DEFENDANT SUBCONTRACTOR TO WORK AT PLAINTIFF’S HOME, WAS A PROPER PLAINTIFF UNDER LABOR LAW 240 (1) AND 241 (6), QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT WAS IN CONTROL OF THE WORK SITE AND HAD BEEN DELEGATED SITE SAFETY RESPONSIBILITIES (SECOND DEPT).
AFFIRMATION CONTESTING SERVICE DID NOT CONFORM TO NEW YORK LAW AND THEREFORE DID NOT REBUT THE PROCESS SERVER’S AFFIDAVIT (SECOND DEPT).
NO EVIDENCE ICE ON WHICH PLAINTIFF SLIPPED AND FELL WAS FORMED BEFORE THE STORM, DEFENDANT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO THE STORM IN PROGRESS RULE (SECOND DEPT).
A COMPUTER PRINTOUT FROM THE NYS DEPARTMENT OF STATE WEBSITE PURPORTING TO SHOW THE LOCATION OF DEFENDANT’S PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS FOR VENUE PURPOSES WAS NOT ADMISSIBLE AS A BUSINESS RECORD (SECOND DEPT).
42 USC 1983 IS NOT SUBJECT TO THE MUNICIPAL-LAW NOTICE OF CLAIM REQUIREMENT; THE NOTICE OF THE MALICIOUS PROSECUTION ACTION WAS TIMELY; THE PETITION TO FILE LATE NOTICES OF CLAIM FOR THE REMAINING STATE LAW CLAIMS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED; THE EXCUSES WERE NOT VALID AND THE VILLAGE DID NOT HAVE TIMELY NOTICE OF THE CLAIMS SIMPLY BY VIRTUE OF THE POLICE REPORT AND THE INVOLVEMENT OF A POLICE OFFICER (SECOND DEPT).
THE BASES FOR THE UPWARD DEPARTURE WERE ALREADY TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT BY THE SORA RISK ASSESSMENT GUIDELINES; UPWARD DEPARTURE REVERSED (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...