You are here: / BRAND AMBASSADOR WAS NOT AN EMPLOYEE.

Search Results

/

BRAND AMBASSADOR WAS NOT AN EMPLOYEE.

The Third Department determined a “brand ambassador” hired by G&R (an entertainment and communication business) to promote products at live events was not an employee and therefore was not entitled to unemployment insurance benefits:

Here, the uncontroverted testimony of G & R’s account executive established that G & R did not train or instruct claimant on his duties for this event, was not present on the event day and lacked any authority to and did not supervise claimant or the means by which he performed these duties for the client. G & R advertised the position on a Facebook page for brand ambassadors, using information about the event position provided by the client, and it received via email resumes and accompanying photographs from applicants, which it reviewed and submitted to the client, which selected its brand ambassadors. Claimant was free to decline the position and was permitted to and had worked for other brand promoters; after the client selected claimant and other individuals for this event, G & R provided them with written show information and guidelines supplied by the client, which outlined the details and expectations for the event.

G & R also sent claimant a welcome letter agreement — that the parties signed — designating him as an independent contractor and that required, among other provisions, that any substitutes be approved; it also set forth the client’s expectations and rules … . Matter of Berger (Gail & Rice, Inc.–Commissioner of Labor), 2016 NY Slip Op 06527, 3rd Dept 10-6-16

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE (BRAND AMBASSADOR WAS NOT AN EMPLOYEE)/BRAND AMBASSADOR (UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE, BRAND AMBASSADOR WAS NOT AN EMPLOYEE)

/

HOUSEKEEPER WAS EMPLOYEE OF CLEANING REFERRAL AGENCY.

The Third Department determined a housekeeper was an employee of Today’s Cleaning Service (TCS), a referral agency which provided housekeepers for clients and was therefore entitled to unemployment insurance benefits:

The record evidence establishes that TCS solicited applicants through online advertisements and through its website — which claimant used to complete an application and submit her résumé — and screened the applications that it received … . TCS’s hiring process also required claimant to complete several jobs on a voluntary and trial basis, during which she would work alongside an experienced housekeeper who would report back on claimant’s work and ability to effectively provide services for TCS’s clients. The initial rate of pay was established and set by TCS, and TCS paid claimant by check. TCS informed claimant of her scheduled jobs — which claimant was required to promptly accept or reject — and the nature and scope of services required for each. During the performance of those cleaning services, TCS required claimant to wear an identification badge reflecting her affiliation with TCS … . TCS also provided its clients with “scoreboards” that the clients could use to evaluate the services provided and inform TCS of a housekeeper’s performance, which TCS could consider when assigning future jobs. If claimant was unable to provide an agreed-upon service or report for a job, claimant was required to immediately inform TCS, and TCS would secure a substitute … .

Although claimant was allowed to keep any existing clients upon being hired by TCS and could work for other employers, the written referral agreement governing TCS’s relationship with each housekeeper prohibited solicitation of TCS’s clients for one year after the time period encompassed by the agreement and specified that TCS’s client information remained the private property of TCS… . Matter of Jachym (Today’s Cleaning Serv.–Commissioner of Labor), 2016 NY Slip Op 06523, 3rd Dept 10-6-16

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE (HOUSEKEEPER WAS EMPLOYEE OF CLEANING REFERRAL AGENCY)/HOUSEKEEPER (UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE, HOUSEKEEPER WAS EMPLOYEE OF CLEANING REFERRAL AGENCY)

/

BOILER MANUFACTURER LIABLE FOR FAILURE TO WARN EMPLOYEES OF THE HAZARDS OF WORKING WITH ASBESTOS; DAMAGES FOR PAST PAIN AND SUFFERING REDUCED FROM NEARLY $10 TO $4.5 MILLION.

The First Department determined the jury’s finding of fault for failure to warn in this asbestos case was supported by the evidence. Defendant used asbestos in the manufacture of its boilers where plaintiff’s decedent worked. However, the First Department reduced the trial court’s nearly $10,000,000 award for past pain and suffering to $4, 500,000:

The jury’s verdict is based on sufficient evidence and is not against the weight of the evidence … . The evidence adduced at trial demonstrates that, while defendant did not manufacture asbestos, for decades it heavily promoted the use of the type of asbestos insulation to which the decedent was exposed. Further, defendant often sold asbestos products along with its boilers and advertised asbestos as the preferred insulation product to use for its boilers. The evidence also shows that defendant was aware of the dangers of asbestos exposure well before the decedent’s first exposure in the late 1970s, and that the decedent was never advised by defendant or his employers about those dangers. Accordingly, there is no reason to disturb the jury’s determination that defendant had a legal obligation to warn workers such as the decedent of the hazards of asbestos exposure, and that defendant’s failure to warn proximately caused the decedent’s mesothelioma … . Peraica v A.O. Smith Water Prods. Co., 2016 NY Slip Op 06537, 1st Dept 10-6-16

PRODUCTS LIABILITY (BOILER MANUFACTURER LIABLE FOR FAILURE TO WARN EMPLOYEES OF THE HAZARDS OF WORKING WITH ASBESTOS; DAMAGES FOR PAST PAIN AND SUFFERING REDUCED FROM NEARLY $10 TO $4.5 MILLION)/ASBESTOS (BOILER MANUFACTURER LIABLE FOR FAILURE TO WARN EMPLOYEES OF THE HAZARDS OF WORKING WITH ASBESTOS; DAMAGES FOR PAST PAIN AND SUFFERING REDUCED FROM NEARLY $10 TO $4.5 MILLION)/BOILERS (BOILER MANUFACTURER LIABLE FOR FAILURE TO WARN EMPLOYEES OF THE HAZARDS OF WORKING WITH ASBESTOS; DAMAGES FOR PAST PAIN AND SUFFERING REDUCED FROM NEARLY $10 TO $4.5 MILLION)

/ ,

NYC DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH EXCEEDED ITS REGULATORY AUTHORITY WITH RESPECT TO MANDATING INFLUENZA VACCINATIONS FOR CERTAIN PRE-SCHOOL PROGRAMS.

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Richter, determined the New York City Department of Health exceeded the scope of its regulatory authority when it adopted regulations mandating influenza vaccinations for children attending certain child care, pre-kindergarten and kindergarten programs. The regulations allowed programs to opt-out of the vaccination requirement by paying a fine. The opt-out provision was deemed unrelated to public health, and therefore beyond the Department of Health’s regulatory authority:

… [W]e conclude that by adopting the challenged amendments, the Board of Health “cross[ed] the line into legislative territory” … . [T]he Board of Health did not merely balance costs and benefits, but instead improperly made value judgments by creating a regulatory scheme with exceptions not grounded in promoting public health. … [T]he challenged amendments do not prohibit a child who was not vaccinated against the flu from attending child care or school, but provide only that the facility “may” refuse entry to the unvaccinated child … . Instead, the provider or school can, in effect, opt-out of the vaccination requirement and allow an unvaccinated child to attend, upon payment of a monetary fine … .

This opt-out provision stands in stark contrast to section 2164(7)(a) of the State’s Public Health Law, which, logically, forbids children from remaining in school without proof of the immunizations required under that statute. The challenged amendments, on the other hand, allow a child care provider or school to make an economic choice to pay a fine rather than expel a student and lose a year’s worth of tuition. Creating a policy whereby unvaccinated children are allowed to stay in child care or school flies in the face of respondents’ claim that the challenged amendments are meant to promote the public health by reducing transmission of the flu virus. Not surprisingly, respondents are unable to point to any health-related reason supporting the opt-out provision. Garcia v New York City Dept. of Health & Mental Hygiene, 2016 NY Slip Op 06559, 1st Dept 10-6-16

MUNICIPAL LAW (NYC DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH EXCEEDED ITS REGULATORY AUTHORITY WITH RESPECT TO MANDATING INFLUENZA VACCINATIONS FOR CERTAIN PRE-SCHOOL PROGRAMS)/ADMINISTRATIVE LAW (NYC DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH EXCEEDED ITS REGULATORY AUTHORITY WITH RESPECT TO MANDATING INFLUENZA VACCINATIONS FOR CERTAIN PRE-SCHOOL PROGRAMS)/INFLUENZA VACCINATIONS (NYC DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH EXCEEDED ITS REGULATORY AUTHORITY WITH RESPECT TO MANDATING INFLUENZA VACCINATIONS FOR CERTAIN PRE-SCHOOL PROGRAMS)

/

SIX YEAR DELAY IN BRINGING DEFENDANT TO TRIAL WAS NOT MOTIVATED BY THE PEOPLE’S ATTEMPT TO GAIN A TACTICAL ADVANTAGE; DISMISSAL ON SPEEDY TRIAL GROUNDS PROPERLY DENIED.

The First Department, over an extensive two-justice dissent, determined the trial court properly denied defendant’s motion to dismiss on speedy-trial grounds stemming from the six-year delay between the shooting and trial. The defendant and another man, Armstead, were charged in the shooting death of a bystander while intending to shoot another. The People wanted to convict Armstead before trying defendant in the hope Armstead would testify against defendant. Three trials of Armstead ended in at least a partial mistrial. Before the fourth trial, Armstead pled guilty to manslaughter. Over the course of the six years, delays were incurred, inter alia, because counsel were unavailable and because of damage caused by Hurricane Sandy:

The chronology of this case highlights some of the problems faced by the courts of this state in large metropolitan areas. These include overburdened courts, overcrowded jails, and overworked prosecutors and legal services defense counsel. Nevertheless, these issues must be considered in the context of this particular case as they affect, if at all, this particular defendant.

The dissent tends to minimize the defense side of the equation in determining the reason for the delay, choosing to focus on the prosecution’s attempt to get Armstead to testify against defendant as the main reason for the delay in bringing him to trial. While the attempt to get Armstead to testify against defendant certainly played an important role in the delay, it is not the only reason and ignores the many other causes for the delay.

The … chronology shows that much of the delay was occasioned by requests for adjournments by defendant and/or his codefendant for motion practice, change of counsel, discovery proceedings, unavailability of co-defendant’s counsel and the like. In the analogous CPL 30.30 situation, adjournments granted with a codefendant’s consent are not chargeable to the People … , and they should not be chargeable here. Despite the dissent’s conclusion to the contrary, the record supports the conclusion that these adjournments were not motivated by a goal on the part of the People to gain an unfair tactical advantage over defendant … . People v Wiggins, 2016 NY Slip Op 06538, 1st Dept 10-6-16

 

CRIMINAL LAW (SIX YEAR DELAY IN BRINGING DEFENDANT TO TRIAL WAS NOT MOTIVATED BY THE PEOPLE’S ATTEMPT TO GAIN A TACTICAL ADVANTAGE; DISMISSAL ON SPEEDY TRIAL GROUNDS PROPERLY DENIED)/SPEEDY TRIAL (SIX YEAR DELAY IN BRINGING DEFENDANT TO TRIAL WAS NOT MOTIVATED BY THE PEOPLE’S ATTEMPT TO GAIN A TACTICAL ADVANTAGE; DISMISSAL ON SPEEDY TRIAL GROUNDS PROPERLY DENIED)

/ , ,

PROOF OF SPECIFIC AS OPPOSED TO GENERAL CLEANING PRACTICES, UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, WAS DEEMED SUFFICIENT TO DEMONSTRATE A LACK OF CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE CONDITION WHICH CAUSED PLAINTIFF TO FALL; FAILURE TO ALLEGE ANY ESPINAL EXCEPTION MANDATED SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF THE CLEANING CONTRACTOR.

Although the facts were not explained, the Second Department determined proof of “specific,” as opposed to “general,” cleaning practices, “under the circumstances,” was sufficient to meet defendant’s burden demonstrating the absence of constructive notice of the condition which caused plaintiff to fall (not specified in the decision). In addition, because plaintiff did not allege any of the “Espinal” exceptions, proof the plaintiff was not a party to the building owner’s contract with the cleaning contractor was sufficient to warrant summary judgment in favor of the contractor:

A defendant has constructive notice of a hazardous condition on property when the condition is visible and apparent and has existed for a sufficient length of time to afford the defendant a reasonable opportunity to discover and remedy it … . To meet its initial burden on the issue of lack of constructive notice, the defendant is required to offer some evidence as to when the accident site was last cleaned or inspected prior to the plaintiff’s fall … . Although submission of evidence as to the defendant’s general cleaning practices is generally insufficient to meet the defendant’s burden on the issue of lack of constructive notice, specific evidence as to cleaning practices may be adequate, depending on the circumstances of the case … .

Here, the owner satisfied its prima facie burden through submission of the deposition testimony of an employee of the contractor and the building concierge employed by the owner. The testimony of the building concierge, and the testimony of the contractor’s employee regarding the frequency of the employee’s inspections of the area where the injured plaintiff fell, established, prima facie, that the owner did not have constructive notice of the allegedly dangerous condition … . Mavis v Rexcorp Realty, LLC, 2016 NY Slip Op 06476, 2nd Dept 10-5-16

NEGLIGENCE (PROOF OF SPECIFIC AS OPPOSED TO GENERAL CLEANING PRACTICES, UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, WAS DEEMED SUFFICIENT TO DEMONSTRATE A LACK OF CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE CONDITION WHICH CAUSED PLAINTIFF TO FALL)/SLIP AND FALL (PROOF OF SPECIFIC AS OPPOSED TO GENERAL CLEANING PRACTICES, UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, WAS DEEMED SUFFICIENT TO DEMONSTRATE A LACK OF CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE CONDITION WHICH CAUSED PLAINTIFF TO FALL)/EVIDENCE (SLIP AND FALL, PROOF OF SPECIFIC AS OPPOSED TO GENERAL CLEANING PRACTICES, UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, WAS DEEMED SUFFICIENT TO DEMONSTRATE A LACK OF CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE CONDITION WHICH CAUSED PLAINTIFF TO FALL)/CONTRACT LAW (SLIP AND FALL, FAILURE TO ALLEGE ANY ESPINAL EXCEPTION MANDATED SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF THE CLEANING CONTRACTOR)

/ ,

DEFENDANT IN THIS REAR-END COLLISION CASE DEMONSTRATED FREEDOM FROM COMPARATIVE FAULT AND WAS THEREFORE ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT.

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the defendant (Dick) in this rear-end collision case demonstrated freedom from fault and was entitled to summary judgment. The evidence, including plaintiff’s testimony, demonstrated defendant’s vehicle was struck from behind while stopped behind plaintiff, and thereby pushed into contact with the rear of plaintiff’s vehicle. It was alleged that defendant’s vehicle was struck from behind by a Verizon truck which left the scene. That there was a question of fact whether any Verizon truck was involved in the accident had no effect on defendant’s entitlement to summary judgment:

“The driver of a motor vehicle shall not follow another vehicle more closely than is reasonable and prudent, having due regard for the speed of such vehicles and the traffic upon and the condition of the highway” … . Hence, “[a] rear-end collision with a stopped vehicle creates a prima facie case of negligence against the operator of the moving vehicle, thereby requiring that operator to rebut the inference of negligence by providing a non-negligent explanation for the collision” … . “Evidence that a vehicle was struck in the rear and propelled into the vehicle in front of it may provide a sufficient non-negligent explanation” … .

Here, Dick established his prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that his stopped vehicle was propelled forward into the plaintiff’s vehicle after his vehicle was struck in the rear by a third vehicle, and that he was not at fault in the happening of the accident … . In opposition, the Verizon defendants failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether Dick was at fault in the happening of the accident … . Contrary to the Verizon defendants’ contention, the issue of whether they owned the third vehicle which struck Dick’s vehicle is not relevant to the determination of this motion. Wooldridge-Solano v Dick, 2016 NY Slip Op 06488, 2nd Dept 10-5-16

NEGLIGENCE (DEFENDANT IN THIS REAR-END COLLISION CASE DEMONSTRATED FREEDOM FROM COMPARATIVE FAULT AND WAS THEREFORE ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT)/EVIDENCE (REAR-END COLLISION, DEFENDANT IN THIS REAR-END COLLISION CASE DEMONSTRATED FREEDOM FROM COMPARATIVE FAULT AND WAS THEREFORE ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT)/SUMMARY JUDGMENT (REAR-END COLLISION, DEFENDANT IN THIS REAR-END COLLISION CASE DEMONSTRATED FREEDOM FROM COMPARATIVE FAULT AND WAS THEREFORE ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT)/COMPARATIVE FAULT (REAR-END COLLISION, DEFENDANT IN THIS REAR-END COLLISION CASE DEMONSTRATED FREEDOM FROM COMPARATIVE FAULT AND WAS THEREFORE ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT)/REAR-END COLLISION (DEFENDANT IN THIS REAR-END COLLISION CASE DEMONSTRATED FREEDOM FROM COMPARATIVE FAULT AND WAS THEREFORE ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT)

/ ,

PLAINTIFFS FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE THE ABSENCE OF COMPARATIVE FAULT IN THIS REAR-END COLLISION CASE, SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF PLAINTIFFS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED.

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiffs’ failure to demonstrate the absence of comparative fault in this rear-end collision case required the denial of plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment without reference to defendant’s papers:

 

“To prevail on a motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability, a plaintiff must establish, prima facie, not only that the opposing party was negligent, but also that the plaintiff was free from comparative fault” … . A rear-end collision with a stopped or stopping vehicle establishes a prima facie case of negligence on the part of the operator of the rear vehicle, requiring that operator to come forward with evidence of a nonnegligent explanation for the collision in order to rebut the inference of negligence … . Here, the plaintiffs’ submissions in support of their motion, which included the defendant’s deposition transcript, failed to eliminate a triable issue of fact as to whether the defendant had a nonnegligent explanation for the collision. According to the defendant, the plaintiffs’ vehicle came to a stop, started again, and came to a second stop for no apparent reason. The defendant claimed that when he braked to avoid a collision, his vehicle skidded on a roadway which was wet from melting snow … . Moluh v Vord, 2016 NY Slip Op 06477, 2nd Dept 10-5-16

NEGLIGENCE (PLAINTIFFS FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE THE ABSENCE OF COMPARATIVE FAULT IN THIS REAR-END COLLISION CASE, SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF PLAINTIFFS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/EVIDENCE (REAR-END COLLISION, PLAINTIFFS FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE THE ABSENCE OF COMPARATIVE FAULT IN THIS REAR-END COLLISION CASE, SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF PLAINTIFFS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/COMPARATIVE FAULT (SUMMARY JUDGMENT, PLAINTIFFS FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE THE ABSENCE OF COMPARATIVE FAULT IN THIS REAR-END COLLISION CASE, SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF PLAINTIFFS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/SUMMARY JUDGMENT (REAR-END COLLISION PLAINTIFFS FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE THE ABSENCE OF COMPARATIVE FAULT IN THIS REAR-END COLLISION CASE, SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF PLAINTIFFS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/REAR-END COLLISIONS (PLAINTIFFS FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE THE ABSENCE OF COMPARATIVE FAULT IN THIS REAR-END COLLISION CASE, SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF PLAINTIFFS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED)

 

/ ,

CHAIN BETWEEN TWO POLES NOT AN OPEN AND OBVIOUS CONDITION, SCHOOL’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS TRIP AND FALL CASE PROPERLY DENIED.

The Second Department determined the defendant school district did not demonstrate a chain stretched between two poles, over which plaintiff tripped and fell at a pep rally, was an open and obvious condition. Therefore the school’s motion for summary judgment was properly denied:

There is no duty to warn of a condition which is open and obvious and not inherently dangerous … . “The issue of whether a dangerous condition is open and obvious is fact-specific, and usually a question for a jury” … . “A condition that is ordinarily apparent to a person making reasonable use of his or her senses may be rendered a trap for the unwary where the condition is obscured or the plaintiff is distracted’ … .

Here, the defendant failed to establish, prima facie, that the chain was open and obvious given the crowd and lighting conditions at the time of the accident … . Since the defendant failed to establish its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, it is not necessary to review the sufficiency of the plaintiff’s opposition papers … . Simon v Comsewogue Sch. Dist., 2016 NY Slip Op 06486, 2nd Dept 10-5-16

 

NEGLIGENCE (CHAIN BETWEEN TWO POLES NOT AN OPEN AND OBVIOUS CONDITION, SCHOOL’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS TRIP AND FALL CASE PROPERLY DENIED)/EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW (TRIP AND FALL, CHAIN BETWEEN TWO POLES NOT AN OPEN AND OBVIOUS CONDITION, SCHOOL’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS TRIP AND FALL CASE PROPERLY DENIED)/SLIP AND FALL (CHAIN BETWEEN TWO POLES NOT AN OPEN AND OBVIOUS CONDITION, SCHOOL’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS TRIP AND FALL CASE PROPERLY DENIED)

/

WHEEL STOP WAS OPEN AND OBVIOUS AND NOT INHERENTLY DANGEROUS.

The Second Department determined the wheel stop was an open and obvious condition which can not be the basis for liability in a slip and fall case:

While a property owner has a duty to maintain its premises in a reasonably safe manner for its patrons … , there is no duty to protect or warn against an open and obvious condition which is not inherently dangerous … . “A wheel stop or concrete parking lot divider which is clearly visible presents no unreasonable risk of harm” … .

Here, the defendant … established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting, inter alia, the plaintiff’s deposition testimony and photographic evidence demonstrating that the plaintiff tripped when her foot came into contact with a wheel stop, which was open and obvious and not inherently dangerous, as she attempted to step over it on the way to her car … . Lacerra v CVS Pharmacy, 2016 NY Slip Op 06474, 2nd Dept 10-5-16

NEGLIGENCE (WHEEL STOP WAS OPEN AND OBVIOUS AND NOT INHERENTLY DANGEROUS)/SLIP AND FALL (WHEEL STOP WAS OPEN AND OBVIOUS AND NOT INHERENTLY DANGEROUS)/WHEEL STOP (WHEEL STOP WAS OPEN AND OBVIOUS AND NOT INHERENTLY DANGEROUS)

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