You are here: / QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF WAS ENGAGED IN ROUTINE MAINTENANCE OR...

Search Results

/

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF WAS ENGAGED IN ROUTINE MAINTENANCE OR REPAIR COVERED BY LABOR LAW 240 (1) WHEN HE FELL FROM A LADDER 2ND DEPT.

In the context of a legal malpractice action based on the failure to timely commence a Labor Law 240 (1) action, the Second Department determined there was a question of fact whether plaintiff was engaged in routine maintenance (not covered by the Labor Law) or repair (covered by the Labor Law) at the time he fell from a ladder:

Here, the defendants’ own submissions failed to eliminate triable issues of fact as to whether the plaintiff was engaged in “repair[s]” at the time of his accident or whether he was engaged in routine maintenance. On the one hand, the defendants submitted evidence establishing that the plaintiff was changing a ballast in a light fixture at the time of his accident, a job which constitutes routine maintenance since the replacement of this component occurs in the course of normal wear and tear … . However, the defendants also submitted the plaintiff’s deposition testimony in support of their motion. The plaintiff testified at his deposition that he was in the midst of disconnecting, splicing, cleaning, and assessing the internal electrical wires in order to fix a light fixture when he fell from the ladder. Thus, the plaintiff’s deposition testimony demonstrated the existence of a triable issue of fact as to whether the plaintiff was “repairing” the light fixture at the time of his accident … . Ferrigno v Jaghab, Jaghab & Jaghab, P.C., 2017 NY Slip Op 05709, 2nd Dept 7-19-17

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF WAS ENGAGED IN ROUTINE MAINTENANCE OR REPAIR COVERED BY LABOR LAW 240 (1) WHEN HE FELL FROM A LADDER 2ND DEPT)

/

AFTER MOTHER CONSENTED TO A NEGLECT FINDING AND THE CHILD WAS PLACED IN KINSHIP FOSTER CARE, MOTHER SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN AWARDED UNSUPERVISED VISITATION WITHOUT A HEARING 2ND DEPT.

The Second Department, reversing Family Court, determined mother should not have been awarded unsupervised visitation without a hearing. Mother had previously consented to a neglect finding and the child had been placed in kinship foster care:

“In a child protective proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, [t]he best interests of the children determine whether visitation should be permitted to a parent who has committed abuse or neglect. Pursuant to Family Court Act § 1061, the court may modify any order issued during the course of a child protective proceeding for good cause shown.’ As with the initial order, the modified order must reflect a resolution consistent with the best interests of the children after consideration of all relevant facts and circumstances”…  “Before making children available for unsupervised visits, a Family Court must find that a person with a history of abuse or neglect of her children has successfully overcome her prior inclinations and behavior patterns, despite what may be the best of intentions”… . Where facts material to a best interests analysis, and the circumstances surrounding such facts, remain in dispute, a hearing is required … .

Under the circumstances of this case, a hearing was necessary to determine whether unsupervised overnight visitation between the mother and the child was in the child’s best interests … . Matter of Jeanette V. (Marina L.), 2017 NY Slip Op 05741, 2nd Dept 7-19-17

FAMILY LAW (VISITATION, AFTER MOTHER CONSENTED TO A NEGLECT FINDING AND THE CHILD WAS PLACED IN KINSHIP FOSTER CARE, MOTHER SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN AWARDED UNSUPERVISED VISITATION WITHOUT A HEARING 2ND DEPT)/VISITATION (FAMILY LAW, AFTER MOTHER CONSENTED TO A NEGLECT FINDING AND THE CHILD WAS PLACED IN KINSHIP FOSTER CARE, MOTHER SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN AWARDED UNSUPERVISED VISITATION WITHOUT A HEARING 2ND DEPT)/NEGLECT (VISITATION, AFTER MOTHER CONSENTED TO A NEGLECT FINDING AND THE CHILD WAS PLACED IN KINSHIP FOSTER CARE, MOTHER SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN AWARDED UNSUPERVISED VISITATION WITHOUT A HEARING 2ND DEPT)

/

NO PRESUMPTION THE BEST INTERESTS OF A CHILD ARE SERVED BY PLACEMENT WITH A FAMILY MEMBER, FAMILY COURT REVERSED (2ND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Family Court, determined that it was not in the best interests of the children to be removed from foster care and placed with family members:

“When considering guardianship appointments, the child’s best interests are paramount” … . Once parental rights have been terminated, there is no presumption favoring the child’s biological family over the proposed adoptive parents selected by an authorized agency … .

Here, the Family Court’s determination that it was in the children’s best interests to grant the respective petitions for guardianship, rather than keeping the children with their foster parents for the purpose of adoption, lacks the requisite sound and substantial basis in the record … . The children Hailey and Kailyn have resided in the same foster home since June 2015, and the children Danielle and Belicia have resided in the same foster home since November 2015, where they have bonded with their foster parents and are happy, healthy, and well provided for … . There is no presumption that the children’s best interests will be better served by returning them to a family member, and it would not be in the children’s best interests to do so here … . Matter of Rebecca B. v Michael B., 2017 NY Slip Op 05720, 2nd Dept 7-19-17

FAMILY LAW (ADOPTION, GUARDIANSHIP, NO PRESUMPTION THE BEST INTERESTS OF A CHILD ARE SERVED BY PLACEMENT WITH A FAMILY MEMBER, FAMILY COURT REVERSED (2ND DEPT))/ADOPTION (GUARDIANSHIP, NO PRESUMPTION THE BEST INTERESTS OF A CHILD ARE SERVED BY PLACEMENT WITH A FAMILY MEMBER, FAMILY COURT REVERSED (2ND DEPT))/GUARDIANSHIP (ADOPTION, NO PRESUMPTION THE BEST INTERESTS OF A CHILD ARE SERVED BY PLACEMENT WITH A FAMILY MEMBER, FAMILY COURT REVERSED (2ND DEPT)

/ ,

FAILURE TO INSTRUCT THE JURY ON THE NEED FOR CORROBORATION OF THE TESTIMONY OF AN ACCOMPLICE REQUIRED A NEW TRIAL 2ND DEPT.

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s murder conviction and ordering a new trial, determined the trial judge should have given the jury the accomplice-in-fact instruction concerning the need for corroboration of the testimony of an accomplice:

“A defendant may not be convicted of any offense upon the testimony of an accomplice unsupported by corroborative evidence tending to connect the defendant with the commission of such offense” (CPL 60.22[1]). A witness in a criminal action is an accomplice if he or she “may reasonably be considered to have participated in . . . the offense charged or an offense based upon the same or some of the same facts or conduct which constitute the offense charged”… . A witness who is a criminal facilitator is an accomplice for corroboration purposes … . The factual issue of whether a particular witness is an accomplice should be submitted to the jury if different inferences may reasonably be drawn from the proof regarding complicity … .

Here, different inferences may reasonably be drawn … as to whether the second eyewitness drove Gill and the shooter to the scene, with the knowledge that one or the other of them intended to use the gun. Under these circumstances, the Supreme Court erred in failing to provide the jury with an accomplice-in-fact charge. The error was not harmless, because the evidence of the defendant’s guilt was not overwhelming. It is possible that the jury, properly charged on whether to treat the second eyewitness as an accomplice, and, if so, how to consider his testimony, could have discounted his version of the events. In that case, it was for the jury to decide whether the remaining evidence established the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt … . People v Riley, 2017 NY Slip Op 05755, 2nd Dept 7-19-17

CRIMINAL LAW (FAILURE TO INSTRUCT THE JURY ON THE NEED FOR CORROBORATION OF THE TESTIMONY OF AN ACCOMPLICE REQUIRED A NEW TRIAL)/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, ACCOMPLICE TESTIMONY, FAILURE TO INSTRUCT THE JURY ON THE NEED FOR CORROBORATION OF THE TESTIMONY OF AN ACCOMPLICE REQUIRED A NEW TRIAL)/JURY INSTRUCTIONS (CRIMINAL LAW, ACCOMPLICE TESTIMONY, FAILURE TO INSTRUCT THE JURY ON THE NEED FOR CORROBORATION OF THE TESTIMONY OF AN ACCOMPLICE REQUIRED A NEW TRIAL)

​

/

JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE VACATED DEFENDANT’S GUILTY PLEA OVER DEFENDANT’S OBJECTION 2ND DEPT.

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the sentencing judge should not have vacated defendant’s guilty plea. Under the plea bargain defendant was promised an 18-year sentence. After trial he was sentenced to 50 years. Although defendant indicated he didn’t remember the underlying events because he was intoxicated, both he and his attorney objected when the judge vacated the plea:

“[I]n the absence of fraud, misrepresentation, deceit, or trickery, courts have no inherent power to set aside a plea of guilty absent the defendant’s consent other than to correct their own mistakes” … . Moreover, a court may not vacate a plea over a defendant’s objection … .

Here, the People fail to identify, nor is there apparent, any error or mistake made by the Supreme Court in accepting the defendant’s plea. Nor is there any evidence of fraud, misrepresentation, deceit, or trickery presented on this record … .. The defendant’s statements to the probation department to the effect that he was intoxicated and did not remember what had occurred on the night of the shootings cannot be said to constitute consent on the part of the defendant to the vacatur of his plea of guilty and the reinstatement of his plea of not guilty … . Further, notwithstanding the court’s conclusion and the People’s assertion to the contrary, in response to the court’s questioning as to whether the defendant wished to proceed to trial and assert an intoxication defense, the defendant merely indicated that he had wished to do so in the past, not that he wished to withdraw the plea and go to trial now. Nor did the defendant unequivocally inform the court that he had been coerced into pleading guilty … . Instead, the record shows that, when the court stated that it would strike the plea and set the matter down for trial, the defendant and his attorney immediately protested, but the court overruled their objections and moved on. The court erred in vacating the plea over the defendant’s objections … . People v Brown, 2017 NY Slip Op 05748, 2nd Dept 7-19-17

CRIMINAL LAW (JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE VACATED DEFENDANT’S GUILTY PLEA OVER DEFENDANT’S OBJECTION)/GUILTY PLEA, VACATION OF (JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE VACATED DEFENDANT’S GUILTY PLEA OVER DEFENDANT’S OBJECTION)

/ ,

REAL PROPERTY TRANSFER BY RELIGIOUS CORPORATION INVALID, CORPORATION DID NOT SEEK COURT APPROVAL FOR THE TRANSFER 2ND DEPT.

The Second Department determined summary judgment was properly awarded to plaintiff in this action to quiet title. Plaintiff religious corporation was required to get the court’s permission before selling property to defendant. Because plaintiff did not seek leave of court, its transfer of the property to defendant was invalid:

Religious Corporations Law § 12(1) provides that in order to sell any of its real property, a religious corporation must apply for, and obtain, leave of court pursuant to Not-For-Profit Corporation Law § 511 … . “The purpose of this requirement is to protect the members of the religious corporation, the real parties in interest, from loss through unwise bargains and from perversion of the use of the property” … . Here, the plaintiff, a religious corporation subject to the requirements of Religious Corporations Law § 12(1), established, prima facie, that its conveyance of the subject property to the defendants was invalid because it was made without leave of court … . Heights v Schwarz, 2017 NY Slip Op 05707, 2nd Dept 7-19-17

CORPORATION LAW (RELIGIOUS CORPORATIONS, REAL PROPERTY TRANSFER, REAL PROPERTY TRANSFER BY RELIGIOUS CORPORATION INVALID, CORPORATION DID NOT SEEK COURT APPROVAL FOR THE TRANSFER 2ND DEPT)/REAL PROPERTY (RELIGIOUS CORPORATIONS, REAL PROPERTY TRANSFER, REAL PROPERTY TRANSFER BY RELIGIOUS CORPORATION INVALID, CORPORATION DID NOT SEEK COURT APPROVAL FOR THE TRANSFER 2ND DEPT)/RELIGIOUS CORPORATIONS (REAL PROPERTY TRANSFER BY RELIGIOUS CORPORATION INVALID, CORPORATION DID NOT SEEK COURT APPROVAL FOR THE TRANSFER 2ND DEPT)/NOT FOR PROFIT CORPORATION LAW (RELIGIOUS CORPORATIONS, REAL PROPERTY TRANSFER, REAL PROPERTY TRANSFER BY RELIGIOUS CORPORATION INVALID, CORPORATION DID NOT SEEK COURT APPROVAL FOR THE TRANSFER 2ND DEPT)

/ ,

PETITIONER, WHO WAS ADMITTED TO THE PRISON NURSERY PROGRAM AFTER STARTING AN ARTICLE 78 PROCEEDING CONTESTING THE WITHDRAWAL OF ADMISSION, WAS NOT A PREVAILING PARTY WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE EQUAL ACCESS TO JUSTICE ACT, SHE WAS NOT, THEREFORE, ENTITLED TO ATTORNEY’S FEES 2ND DEPT.

The Second Department determined petitioner, an inmate who sought admission to the prison nursery program for her and her child, was not entitled to attorney’s fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA). Petitioner’s admission to the program had been withdrawn by the prison superintendent (Kaplan) so petitioner brought an Article 78 proceeding with an order to show cause. The judge signed the order to show cause and allowed petitioner’s admission to the program pending a hearing. Before the hearing, the superintendent reversed her prior ruling and allowed petitioner to stay in the program. The Second Department held that petitioner was not a “prevailing party” within the meaning of the EAJA, and, even if she had been a prevailing party, the superintendent’s actions were justified:

We conclude that the Supreme Court properly determined that the petitioner was not a “prevailing party” under CPLR 8601(a) and 8602(f), albeit for a different reason. Contrary to the petitioner’s contention, the stipulation entered into between the parties …, which was so-ordered by the court, did not reflect a material change in the legal relationship between the parties because the petitioner’s claims had already been rendered moot by Kaplan’s voluntary decision on December 30, 2014, to vacate her earlier decision removing the petitioner from the Nursery Program … . Furthermore, the petitioner did not achieve prevailing party status by obtaining a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction from the court directing the respondents to admit the [*2]petitioner to the Nursery Program pending the outcome of the proceeding … . Matter of Gonzalez v New York State Dept. of Corr. & Community Supervision, 2017 NY Slip Op 05724, 2nd Dept 7-19-17

CIVIL PROCEDURE (EQUAL ACCESS TO JUSTICE ACT, INMATES, PETITIONER, WHO WAS ADMITTED TO THE PRISON NURSERY PROGRAM AFTER STARTING AN ARTICLE 78 PROCEEDING CONTESTING THE DENIAL OF PERMISSION, WAS NOT A PREVAILING PARTY WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE EQUAL ACCESS TO JUSTICE ACT, SHE WAS NOT, THEREFORE, ENTITLED TO ATTORNEY’S FEES 2ND DEPT)/ATTORNEYS  (EQUAL ACCESS TO JUSTICE ACT, INMATES, PETITIONER, WHO WAS ADMITTED TO THE PRISON NURSERY PROGRAM AFTER STARTING AN ARTICLE 78 PROCEEDING CONTESTING THE DENIAL OF PERMISSION, WAS NOT A PREVAILING PARTY WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE EQUAL ACCESS TO JUSTICE ACT, SHE WAS NOT, THEREFORE, ENTITLED TO ATTORNEY’S FEES 2ND DEPT)/EQUAL ACCESS TO JUSTICE ACT (ATTORNEY’S FEES, INMATES, PETITIONER, WHO WAS ADMITTED TO THE PRISON NURSERY PROGRAM AFTER STARTING AN ARTICLE 78 PROCEEDING CONTESTING THE DENIAL OF PERMISSION, WAS NOT A PREVAILING PARTY WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE EQUAL ACCESS TO JUSTICE ACT, SHE WAS NOT, THEREFORE, ENTITLED TO ATTORNEY’S FEES 2ND DEPT)/INMATES (EQUAL ACCESS TO JUSTICE ACT, ATTORNEY’S FEES, PETITIONER, WHO WAS ADMITTED TO THE PRISON NURSERY PROGRAM AFTER STARTING AN ARTICLE 78 PROCEEDING CONTESTING THE DENIAL OF PERMISSION, WAS NOT A PREVAILING PARTY WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE EQUAL ACCESS TO JUSTICE ACT, SHE WAS NOT, THEREFORE, ENTITLED TO ATTORNEY’S FEES 2ND DEPT)

/ , ,

CITY NOT LIABLE FOR A DOG BITE AT CITY ANIMAL SHELTER 2ND DEPT.

The Second Department determined the city, which operated an animal shelter, was not liable for a dog-bite injury to infant plaintiff. The Second Department held that the operation of the shelter was a government function and there was no special relationship between the city and the plaintiff. Therefore the city was entitled to immunity from liability:

It is undisputed that the City operates the Shelter pursuant to a statutory mandate. Specifically, Agriculture and Markets Law § 114 (former § 115) requires, inter alia, that each town or city that issues dog licenses “shall . . . establish and maintain a pound or shelter for dogs” … . This provision is contained in article 7 of the Agriculture and Markets Law, which states that the purpose of the article “is to provide for the licensing and identification of dogs, the control and protection of the dog population and the protection of persons, property, domestic animals and deer from dog attack and damage” … .

The City’s act of providing an animal shelter constitutes a governmental function and, therefore, it cannot be held liable absent the existence of a special relationship between it and the plaintiffs giving rise to a special duty of care … . ” A special relationship can be formed in three ways: (1) when the municipality violates a statutory duty enacted for the benefit of a particular class of persons; (2) when it voluntarily assumes a duty that generates justifiable reliance by the person who benefits from the duty; or (3) when the municipality assumes positive direction and control in the face of a known, blatant and dangerous safety violation'” … . Abrahams v City of Mount Vernon, 2017 NY Slip Op 05699, 2nd Dept 7-19-17

ANIMAL LAW (CITY NOT LIABLE FOR A DOG BITE AT CITY ANIMAL SHELTER 2ND DEPT)/MUNICIPAL LAW (ANIMAL SHELTER, DOG BITE, CITY NOT LIABLE FOR A DOG BITE AT CITY ANIMAL SHELTER 2ND DEPT)/IMMUNITY (CITY ANIMAL SHELTER, DOG BITE, CITY NOT LIABLE FOR A DOG BITE AT CITY ANIMAL SHELTER 2ND DEPT)/DOG BITES (MUNICIPAL LAW, CITY NOT LIABLE FOR A DOG BITE AT CITY ANIMAL SHELTER 2ND DEPT)

/

ALTHOUGH THE BOOM TRUCK WAS 700 FEET FROM WHERE IT WAS LOADED WHEN THE BOOM STRUCK AN OVERHEAD SIGN, THE TRUCK WAS AT THE WORK SITE WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE LABOR LAW, ALTHOUGH THE INDUSTRIAL CODE PROVISION ADDRESSED THE POSITION OF THE BOOM BUT NOT THE NATURE OF THE ACCIDENT, THE PROVISION WAS BROADLY WORDED AND RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT ON THE LABOR LAW 241 (6) CAUSE OF ACTION 1ST DEPT.

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, over an extensive dissent, determined defendants should not have been awarded summary judgment on plaintiff’s Labor Law 241 (6) cause of action. Plaintiffs were injured when the extended boom on a boom truck struck an overhead sign on a bridge as the truck was being driven away from where it was loaded. Supreme Court had found the accident did not occur at the work site so the Labor Law was not implicated. The First Department held that the truck, which was 700 feet from where it was loaded when the boom struck the sign, was at the work site within the meaning of the Labor Law. The court further found that an Industrial Code provision which related to the position of the boom, but not to the precise facts of the accident, raised a question of fact sufficient to allow the Labor Law 241 (6) cause of action to proceed:

At this stage, … an issue of fact exists as to whether defendants violated section 23-8.2(d)(3) of the Industrial Code, pertaining to “[m]obile crane travel,” which provides that “[a] mobile crane, with or without load, shall not travel with the boom so high that it may bounce back over the cab”… . … Defendants complain that there was no evidence that the boom bounced back over the cab. However, the regulation is violated when a mobile crane has “the boom so high that it may bounce back over the cab” … . Even assuming defendants are correct, the boom was high enough to strike a gantry sign. We reject the dissent’s argument that the regulation was not implicated because plaintiffs were not injured by the boom bouncing over the cab, but rather, when the boom hit the road sign. ​James v Alpha Painting & Constr. Co., Inc., 2017 NY Slip Op 05692, 1st Dept 7-18-17

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (ALTHOUGH THE BOOM TRUCK WAS 700 FEET FROM WHERE IT WAS LOADED WHEN THE BOOM STRUCK AN OVERHEAD SIGN, THE TRUCK WAS AT THE WORK SITE WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE LABOR LAW, ALTHOUGH THE INDUSTRIAL CODE PROVISION ADDRESSED THE POSITION OF THE BOOM BUT NOT THE NATURE OF THE ACCIDENT, THE PROVISION WAS BROADLY WORDED AND RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT ON THE LABOR LAW 241 (6) CAUSE OF ACTION 1ST DEPT)

/ , , ,

A CLAUSE IN AN EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT PURPORTING TO WAIVE THE RIGHT TO BRING A CLASS ACTION SUIT AND SUBMIT COLLECTIVE CLAIMS TO ARBITRATION VIOLATED THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT AND IS UNENFORCEABLE 1ST DEPT.

The First Department, modifying Supreme Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Moskowitz, over a two-justice dissenting opinion, determined an arbitration provision in plaintiff insurance agent’s employment contract was unenforceable with respect to collective actions, here a class action concerning wage and hour claims:

… [W]e conclude … that arbitration provisions such as the one in [plaintiff’s] contract, which prohibit class, collective, or representative claims, violate the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) and thus, that those provisions are unenforceable.

In reaching this conclusion, we agree with the reasoning in Lewis v Epic Sys. Corp. (823 F3d 1147 [7th Cir 2016], cert granted __ US __, 137 S Ct 809 [2017]), the recent case from the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, which addressed the enforceability of arbitration agreements prohibiting collective actions. In Lewis, the plaintiff employee agreed to an arbitration agreement mandating that wage and hour claims could be brought only through]individual arbitration and requiring employees to waive “the right to participate in or receive money or any other relief from any class, collective, or representative proceeding” … . The arbitration agreement also included a clause stating that if the waiver were unenforceable, “any claim brought on a class, collective, or representative action basis must be filed in a court of competent jurisdiction” … .

… The plaintiff [in Lewis] argued that the arbitration clause violated the NLRA because it interfered with employees’ right to engage in concerted activities for mutual aid and protection, and was therefore unenforceable … .

The Seventh Circuit denied the employer’s motion to proceed under the arbitration clause, declining to enforce a clause that precluded employees from “seeking any class, collective, or representative remedies to wage-and-hour disputes” because the clause “violate[d] Sections 7 and 8 of the NLRA” (id. at 1161). According to the Court, section 7 of the NLRA provided that employees have the right to engage in concerted activities, and concerted activities “have long been held to include resort to . . . judicial forums” (id. at 1152) [internal quotation marks omitted]. The Seventh Circuit also found that a lawsuit filed “by a group of employees to achieve more favorable terms or conditions of employment” is considered to constitute “concerted activity” under section 7 of the NLRA (id.) [internal quotation marks omitted). Accordingly, the Court held, contracts such as the one at issue were unenforceable under the NLRA because they “stipulate away employees’ [s]ection 7 rights or otherwise require actions unlawful under the NRLA” (id. at 1155). Gold v New York Life Ins. Co., 2017 NY Slip Op 05695, 1st Dept 7-18-17

CIVIL PROCEDURE (CLASS ACTIONS, EMPLOYMENT LAW, A CLAUSE IN AN EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT PURPORTING TO WAIVE THE RIGHT TO BRING A CLASS ACTION SUIT AND SUBMIT COLLECTIVE CLAIMS TO ARBITRATION VIOLATED THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT AND IS UNENFORCEABLE 1ST DEPT)/CLASS ACTIONS (EMPLOYMENT LAW,  A CLAUSE IN AN EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT PURPORTING TO WAIVE THE RIGHT TO BRING A CLASS ACTION SUIT AND SUBMIT COLLECTIVE CLAIMS TO ARBITRATION VIOLATED THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT AND IS UNENFORCEABLE 1ST DEPT)/EMPLOYMENT LAW (CLASS ACTIONS, ARBITRATION,  A CLAUSE IN AN EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT PURPORTING TO WAIVE THE RIGHT TO BRING A CLASS ACTION SUIT AND SUBMIT COLLECTIVE CLAIMS TO ARBITRATION VIOLATED THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT AND IS UNENFORCEABLE 1ST DEPT)/ARBITRATION (EMPLOYMENT LAW, CLASS ACTIONS,  A CLAUSE IN AN EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT PURPORTING TO WAIVE THE RIGHT TO BRING A CLASS ACTION SUIT AND SUBMIT COLLECTIVE CLAIMS TO ARBITRATION VIOLATED THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT AND IS UNENFORCEABLE 1ST DEPT)/CONTRACT LAW (EMPLOYMENT LAW, ARBITRATION,  A CLAUSE IN AN EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT PURPORTING TO WAIVE THE RIGHT TO BRING A CLASS ACTION SUIT AND SUBMIT COLLECTIVE CLAIMS TO ARBITRATION VIOLATED THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT AND IS UNENFORCEABLE 1ST DEPT)/INSURANCE LAW (EMPLOYMENT LAW, ARBITRATION, A CLAUSE IN AN EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT PURPORTING TO WAIVE THE RIGHT TO BRING A CLASS ACTION SUIT AND SUBMIT COLLECTIVE CLAIMS TO ARBITRATION VIOLATED THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT AND IS UNENFORCEABLE 1ST 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