You are here: / / DRIVER AND CAR OWNER WERE NOT EMPLOYEES OF CAR SERVICE, CAR SERVICE THEREFORE...
,

DRIVER AND CAR OWNER WERE NOT EMPLOYEES OF CAR SERVICE, CAR SERVICE THEREFORE NOT LIABLE FOR ACCIDENT UNDER DOCTRINE OF RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR.

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendants Tuapanta and Hanif (driver and owner of the car involved in an accident) were not employees of defendant car service, Church Ave. Therefore the car service was not liable to plaintiff passenger:

Here, Church Ave established, prima facie, that Tuapanta and Hanif were independent contractors, not its employees. The evidence submitted by Church Ave showed that it is a licensed livery base station in the business of dispatching for-hire vehicles. Specifically, Church Ave receives calls from customers seeking transportation services and then dispatches such calls to drivers of vehicles affiliated with it. Church Ave further demonstrated that it does not own the vehicles to which it dispatches calls and that it does not provide any services to drivers other than transmitting a customer’s request for transportation services. Drivers are responsible for their own schedules, choosing when to turn on their two-way radios and deciding which dispatches to accept. Drivers are free to provide their services to other car services and they retain all of the monies paid by the customers. Drivers pay Church Ave $100 per week to use the service. Church Ave does not provide a salary to the drivers, nor does it provide them with any tax forms. Drivers are also responsible for maintaining their own insurance. There were no written agreements or meetings between the drivers and Church Ave, nor did Church Ave provide any manuals, policies, or procedures for the drivers outside of establishing prices. Under these circumstances, Church Ave established, prima facie, that it did not exercise sufficient control to give rise to liability under the doctrine of respondeat superior … . Castro-Quesada v Tuapanta, 2017 NY Slip Op 02014, 2nd Dept 3-22-17

EMPLOYMENT LAW (DRIVER AND CAR OWNER WERE NOT EMPLOYEES OF CAR SERVICE, CAR SERVICE THEREFORE NOT LIABLE FOR ACCIDENT UNDER DOCTRINE OF RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR)/RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR (DRIVER AND CAR OWNER WERE NOT EMPLOYEES OF CAR SERVICE, CAR SERVICE THEREFORE NOT LIABLE FOR ACCIDENT UNDER DOCTRINE OF RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR)/INDEPENCENT CONTRACTOR (DRIVER AND CAR OWNER WERE NOT EMPLOYEES OF CAR SERVICE, CAR SERVICE THEREFORE NOT LIABLE FOR ACCIDENT UNDER DOCTRINE OF RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR)/NEGLIGENCE (RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR, DRIVER AND CAR OWNER WERE NOT EMPLOYEES OF CAR SERVICE, CAR SERVICE THEREFORE NOT LIABLE FOR ACCIDENT UNDER DOCTRINE OF RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR)

You might also like
ATTORNEYS WHO HAD ACCEPTED A RETAINER TO CONTEST THE REMOVAL OF A GUARDIAN WERE NOT REQUIRED TO RETURN THE RETAINER BECAUSE IT WAS PAID FROM THE INCAPACITATED PERSON’S FUNDS, NO PROOF THE ATTORNEYS WERE AWARE OF THE SOURCE OF THE FUNDS, SUPREME COURT REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).
Jury Instructions Which Lumped Counts Together and Did Not Give the Jury the Information Necessary to Distinguish One Count from Another Mandated a New Trial
AFTER OBTAINING AN UNPAID JUDGMENT AGAINST THE INSURED, PLAINTIFF PROPERLY SUED THE INSURER WHICH HAD DISCLAIMED COVERAGE ALLEGING THE INSURED HAD REFUSED TO COOPERATE; THE PROOF OF THE INSURED’S ALLEGED FAILURE TO COOPERATE WAS NOT SUFFICIENT TO RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT; PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AGAINST THE INSURER WAS PROPERLY GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
WHETHER FAMILY COURT HAS SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION OVER THIS FAMILY OFFENSE PROCEEDING DEPENDS ON WHETHER THERE EXISTS AN “INTIMATE RELATIONSHIP” BETWEEN THE CHILD AND THE RESPONDENT, THE PARAMOUR OF PETITIONER’S FORMER HUSBAND; BEFORE THE COURT CAN RULE ON THE JURISDICTION ISSUE A HEARING TO DETERMINE WHETHER THERE IS AN “INTIMATE RELATIONSHIP” IS REQUIRED; MATTER REMITTED (SECOND DEPT).
RELEASE WHICH PERTAINED TO MEDICAL CENTER AND ANY JOINT TORTFEASORS DID NOT PRECLUDE A MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION AGAINST SURGEONS WHO WERE NOT EMPLOYEES OF THE MEDICAL CENTER, SUPREME COURT REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).
Evidence of Prior Crimes Improperly Admitted to Prove Identity and Intent—There Was No Unique Modus Operandi Which Would Prove Identity and Intent Could Be Inferred from the Commission of the Acts Charged
ALTHOUGH THE DEFENDANT WAS AWARE THE GUILTY PLEA MAY HAVE A NEGATIVE IMPACT ON HIS IMMIGRATION STATUS HE WAS NOT SPECIFICALLY INFORMED DEPORTATION WAS POSSIBLE; MATTER SENT BACK TO GIVE THE DEFENDANT THE OPPORTUNITY TO MOVE TO VACATE THE PLEA (SECOND DEPT). ​
DEFENSE COUNSEL’S QUESTIONS WHETHER COMPLAINANTS HAD HIRED LAWYERS AND HAD SUED DEFENDANT-TEACHER AND THE SCHOOL DISTRICT IN THIS CHILD SEX ABUSE CASE DID NOT OPEN THE DOOR TO ALL EVIDENCE OF DEFENDANT’S ALLEGED PRIOR SEXUAL ABUSE OF CHILDREN, CONVICTION REVERSED BECAUSE DEFENDANT WAS DEPRIVED OF A FAIR TRIAL; JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE PARTICIPATED IN A READBACK OF TESTIMONY (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

PROSECUTOR’S SUMMATION AMOUNTED TO MISCONDUCT, 911 CALL SHOULD NOT HAVE... DRIVER AND CAR OWNER WERE NOT EMPLOYEES OF CAR SERVICE, CAR SERVICE THEREFORE...