You are here: / NURSE WAS AN EMPLOYEE OF COMPANY WHICH DOES HEALTH SCREENING OF EMPLOYEES...

Search Results

/

NURSE WAS AN EMPLOYEE OF COMPANY WHICH DOES HEALTH SCREENING OF EMPLOYEES OF CORPORATE CLIENTS.

The Third Department determined a nurse who worked for Summit Health, which screens employees of corporate clients, was an employee entitled to unemployment insurance benefits:

Summit posted openings for medical examiners on its website, interviewed applicants and screened their education, license credentials and experience to ensure their qualifications and ability to perform the required medical services. Summit scheduled the clinics with its clients, who determined what services were needed; Summit then posted the clinic dates, enabling examiners to sign up to work based upon their availability, and they were paid a set hourly rate. Summit provided all of the equipment and supplies for the clinics and reimbursed the examiners for certain travel and other expenses. If examiners could not work as scheduled, they reported to Summit, which looked for a replacement. Summit solicited claimant to work for it after reviewing her credentials posted on a job website. Claimant worked as a health examiner and a registrar as well as a lead examiner responsible for oversight of the clinic, bringing and returning supplies and equipment provided by Summit, submitting patient consent forms to Summit, resolving problems and reporting back to Summit after the clinic was completed. Examiners were required to sign contracts designating them as independent contractors, which obligated them to comply with industry best practices and provided training available for that purpose; they were required to wear a Summit identification badge and to abide by a dress code at clinics, among other provisions.

Given the foregoing, we find that there was substantial evidence to support the Board's determination that Summit retained sufficient overall control over the work performed by claimant to establish that she was an employee of Summit … . Matter of Armbruster (Summit Health, Inc. — Commissioner of Labor), 2016 NY Slip Op 03231, 3rd Dept 4-28-16


/

PART-TIME ATTORNEY WAS AN EMPLOYEE OF SOLO PRACTITIONER.

The Third Department determined a part-time attorney was an employee of a solo practitioner, Charleston, who worked out of an office in the basement of his house:

Here, the record reflects that Charleston assigned specific legal work to the attorney, advised him of the general deadline associated with each assignment and paid him a set hourly rate for his services, which he received once the relevant clients paid their bills. While the attorney was free to accept or reject assignments, work from home and dictate his own schedule, the nature and frequency of the assignments were controlled by Charleston, and Charleston retained ultimate responsibility to the clients for the quality of the work performed. In addition, Charleston negotiated all retainer agreements, co-billed for his and the attorney's services, reimbursed the attorney for parking expenses, regardless of whether the clients paid that portion of their bills, and, at all times, remained the attorney of record. Furthermore, Charleston and the attorney did not have a written contract and the attorney was permitted to, and often did, use Charleston's office and equipment to carry out his assignments. Thus, despite evidence in the record that could support a contrary result, the Board's finding of an employment relationship is supported by substantial evidence… . Matter of Charleston (Commissioner of Labor), 2016 NY Slip Op 03230, 3rd Dept 4-28-16


/ , ,

VERTICAL LADDER FIRE ESCAPE, THROUGH WHICH PLAINTIFF FELL AND WAS RENDERED PARAPLEGIC, VIOLATED MULTIPLE DWELLINGS LAW 53.

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Tom, determined the owner of an apartment building was in violation of Multiple Dwelling Law 53, which prohibited vertical ladder fire escapes. Plaintiff fell through the hole in the vertical ladder fire escape when she was visiting her friend’s apartment. Plaintiff was rendered paraplegic and sued the building owner:

… [I]n 1948, the Legislature amended the section to add language to subsection nine of Multiple Dwelling Law § 53 (see Laws of New York, 1948, ch 850). The law was entitled “An Act to amend the multiple dwelling law, in relation to existing fire escapes,” and subsection nine, as amended, expressly states that “[a] wire, chain cable, vertical ladder or rope fire-escape is an unlawful means of egress. Every such fire-escape, if required as a means of egress, shall be removed and replaced by a system of fire-escapes constructed and arranged as provided in this section” (Multiple Dwelling Law § 53[9]).

A plain reading of the clear and unambiguous language of subsection nine leads to the conclusion that all vertical ladders on multiple dwellings, regardless of when the fire escape was constructed, are unlawful and must be removed and replaced by a fire escape that complies with the provisions of Multiple Dwelling Law § 53. Notably, the section includes no exceptions of any kind … . Klupchak v First E. Vil. Assoc., 2016 NY Slip Op 03276, 1st Dept 4-28-16

 

/

PRISONER CONVICTED OF A CRIME COMMITTED WHEN HE WAS SIXTEEN AND SUBJECT TO A LIFE SENTENCE IS CONSTITUTIONALLY ENTITLED TO A PAROLE HEARING WHICH TAKES HIS YOUTH AT THE TIME OF THE OFFENSE INTO ACCOUNT.

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice McCarthy, over a concurrence and a two-justice partial dissent, determined petitioner was entitled to a de novo parole hearing in which his age at the time of the offense (16) is taken into account. Claimant was convicted of strangling his 14-year-old girlfriend and was sentenced to 22 years to life. Since serving 22 years in 2000, claimant, now 54, has been denied parole nine times. The Third Department ruled that the Eighth Amendment protection against cruel and unusual punishment required that the parole board consider petitioner's youth at the time of the offense, noting that claimant has a right not to be punished with a life sentence if the crime reflects transient immaturity:

The [Parole] Board, as the entity charged with determining whether petitioner will serve a life sentence, was required to consider the significance of petitioner's youth and its attendant circumstances at the time of the commission of the crime before making a parole determination. That consideration is the minimal procedural requirement necessary to ensure the substantive Eighth Amendment protections set forth in Graham v Florida (560 US 48 [2010]), Miller v Alabama (___ US ___, 132 S Ct 2455 [2012]) and Montgomery v Louisiana (___ US ___, 136 S Ct 718 [2016]). * * *

… [T]he Supreme Court of the United States held in Miller v Alabama (supra) that mandatory sentences of life without the possibility of parole for juvenile homicide offenders violate the Eighth Amendment's prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment (id. at 2460). As that Court has since clarified, a substantive rule announced in Miller is “that life without parole is an excessive sentence for children whose crimes reflect transient immaturity” (Montgomery v Louisiana, 136 S Ct at 735). The Court considered this guarantee in the context of the sentencing stage, and it found that the “procedural requirement necessary to implement [this] substantive guarantee” is “a hearing where youth and its attendant characteristics are considered” for the purpose of “separat[ing] those juveniles who may be sentenced to life without parole from those who may not” … . * * *

A parole board is no more entitled to subject an offender to the penalty of life in prison in contravention of this rule than is a legislature or a sentencing court. Matter of Hawkins v New York State Dept. of Corr. & Community Supervision, 2016 NY Slip Op 03236, 3rd Dept 4-28-16


/ ,

DEFENDANT SHOULD HAVE BEEN PRESENT WHEN DEFENSE COUNSEL, DURING THE TRIAL, REQUESTED TO BE RELIEVED FROM REPRESENTING DEFENDANT, NEW TRIAL ORDERED.

The First Department, reversing defendant's conviction, determined defendant should have been present when defense counsel explained his concerns about defendant to the judge and asked to be relieved from representing the defendant. The request was denied:

In conducting a colloquy on defense counsel's request to be relieved, the court erred in failing to permit defendant to provide any input, or to even be present. At least by the time that the substance of counsel's ex parte application became clear, defendant should have been included in the proceeding.

…[T]his proceeding was an “ancillary proceeding[] [at which] he . . . may have [had] something valuable to contribute” … , and thus that his exclusion from it was error. While defendant may not have been able to justify counsel's removal, we cannot say that the “new matter” brought to light at the ex parte proceeding — where counsel revealed the content of a privileged communication with the court, and expressed the belief that defendant's criticisms of his performance were insincere attempts to sow error in the record — implicated “no potential for meaningful input from [] defendant” … on the subject of whether continued representation by counsel was appropriate.

The proceeding also implicated the court's obligation to make a “minimal inquiry” regarding whether the new facts justified substitution of counsel… . People v Moya, 2016 NY Slip Op 03241, 1st Dept 4-28-16


/

DNA TEST RESULTS DEEMED TESTIMONIAL HEARSAY TRIGGERING DEFENDANT’S RIGHT TO CONFRONT THE ANALYST(S) WITH FIRST-HAND KNOWLEDGE OF CRUCIAL STAGES OF THE ANALYSIS.

The Court of Appeals, in an extensive opinion by Judge DiFiore, over an equally extensive three-judge dissenting opinion, determined the results of DNA testing, which matched defendant's DNA to that found on a weapon, should not have been admitted based solely on the testimony of a laboratory analyst who did not witness crucial aspects of the testing. The evidence was deemed “testimonial” requiring the People to produce a witness with first-hand knowledge who can be cross-examined about essential aspects of the analysis:

Here, there was a criminal action pending against defendant, and the gun, found in the basement of a multifamily dwelling where defendant lived, was evidence seized by police for that prosecution. Swabs from the gun were then tested by an accredited public DNA crime laboratory with the primary (truly, the sole) purpose of proving a particular fact in a criminal proceeding — that defendant possessed the gun and committed the crime for which he was charged. The testing analysts purposefully recorded the DNA profile test results, thereby providing the very basis for the scientific conclusions rendered thereon. Under these circumstances, the laboratory reports as to the DNA profile generated from the evidence submitted to the laboratory by the police in a pending criminal case were testimonial. The DNA profiles were generated in aid of a police investigation of a particular defendant charged by an accusatory instrument and created for the purpose of substantively proving the guilt of a defendant in his pending criminal action. * * *

… [W]e conclude that it is the generated numerical identifiers and the calling of the alleles at the final stage of the DNA typing that effectively accuses defendant of his role in the crime charged. … [A] laboratory that uses a … multiple-analyst model, may adapt their operation so that a single analyst is qualified to testify as to the DNA profile testing. For example, an analyst who generated the DNA profile from one sample may also observe the final stage of testing or retesting involved in the generation of the other profile. Nor do we suggest that, when the testing analysts are unavailable, a fully qualified … expert … cannot testify after analyzing the necessary data, including an independent analysis of the computer imaging from the software used for calling the alleles and recording their separate and distinct analysis. Thus, the claim of a need for a horde of analysts is overstated and a single analyst, particularly the one who performed, witnessed or supervised the generation of the critical numerical DNA profile, would satisfy the dictates of Crawford [541 US 36] and Bullcoming [564 US 647]. People v John, 2016 NY Slip Op 03208. CtApp 4-28-16


/

BENEFICIARIES OF ESTATE DID NOT HAVE STANDING TO BRING AN ACTION TO PRESERVE AN ESTATE ASSET, ONLY THE PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE HAS THAT POWER.

The Second Department determined plaintiffs, who were beneficiaries of decedent's estate, did not have standing to bring an action seeking to recover and preserve an asset allegedly wrongfully diverted from decedent's estate prior to her death. Only a personal representative of the estate could bring the action:

EPTL 11-3.2(b) provides that a cause of action for injury to person or property is not lost because of the death of the person in whose favor the cause of action existed, as the cause of action may be commenced or continued by the decedent's personal representative. “[A] beneficiary, absent extraordinary circumstances . . . , cannot act on behalf of [an] estate or exercise [a] fiduciary's rights with respect to estate property” … . Rather, “[t]he appropriate avenue is to be appointed a representative pursuant to the requirements of the EPTL” … .

Here, the Supreme Court correctly determined that the plaintiffs lacked standing to commence an action to recover and preserve an asset alleged to have been wrongfully diverted from the decedent's estate prior to her death … . The plaintiffs, as individual beneficiaries of the decedent's estate, had no independent right to maintain an independent cause of action for the recovery of estate property, as such a right belonged to the personal representative of the decedent's estate … . Stallsworth v Stallsworth, 2016 NY Slip Op 03161, 2nd Dept 4-27-16


/ ,

MOTION TO AMEND NOTICE OF CLAIM TO ADD NEW THEORY OF LIABILITY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED.

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff's motion to amend the notice of claim should not have been granted. The notice of claim alleged plaintiff fell because of an uneven, broken sidewalk. The amended notice of claim alleged plaintiff slipped on snow or ice:

“Amendments to notices of claim are appropriate only to correct good faith and nonprejudicial technical mistakes, defects or omissions, not substantive changes in the theory of liability'” … . Here, the proposed amendments to the notice of claim included a substantive change to the facts and added a new theory of liability. “Such changes are not technical in nature and are not permitted as late-filed amendments to a notice of claim under General Municipal Law § 50-e[6]” … . Moreover, under the circumstances of this case, the granting of leave to serve and file the proposed amended notice of claim prejudiced NYCHA by depriving it of the opportunity to promptly and meaningfully investigate the claim … .

Nor would it have been proper to grant the plaintiff's cross motion on the basis that it was, in effect, for leave to serve and file a late notice of claim. The plaintiff's motion was not made until May 13, 2014, or almost two years and four months after the happening of the accident on January 21, 2012. The plaintiff's failure to petition for leave to serve a late notice of claim within 1 year and 90 days of the date that his claim accrued deprived the Supreme Court of authority to permit late service of a notice of claim … . Robinson v City of New York, 2016 NY Slip Op 03156, 2nd Dept 4-27-16


/ ,

CODE PROVISION DID NOT SPECIFICALLY IMPOSE TORT LIABILITY ON ABUTTING LANDOWNERS FOR BREACH OF THE DUTY TO MAINTAIN THE SIDEWALK, LANDOWNER’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED.

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined, under the town code, defendant abutting landowner was not liable for a sidewalk slip and fall. Although the code provision imposed a duty to maintain the sidewalk on the abutting landowner, the provision did not specifically impose tort liability:

Generally, liability for injuries sustained as a result of dangerous and defective conditions on public sidewalks is placed on the municipality, and not the abutting landowner … . ” However, an abutting landowner will be liable to a pedestrian injured by a defect in a sidewalk where the landowner created the defect, caused the defect to occur by some special use of the sidewalk, or breached a specific ordinance or statute which obligates [him or her] to maintain the sidewalk'” … . ” In order for a statute, ordinance or municipal charter to impose tort liability upon an abutting owner for injuries caused by his or her negligence, the language thereof must not only charge the landowner with a duty, it must also specifically state that if the landowner breaches that duty he [or she] will be liable to those who are injured'” … . Kilfoyle v Town of N. Hempstead, 2016 NY Slip Op 03141, 2nd Dept 4-27-16


/ ,

STATEMENT IN HOSPITAL RECORD ATTRIBUTED TO PLAINTIFF WAS ADMISSIBLE AS PART OF A BUSINESS RECORD AND AS A PARTY ADMISSION, STATEMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN EXCLUDED FROM TRIAL.

The Second Department determined defendant was entitled to a new trial on liability because a statement attributed to the plaintiff in a hospital report should not have been excluded. Plaintiff alleged she was struck by defendant's vehicle as she walked behind it. The statement attributed to plaintiff indicated only that she fell in the road. The nurse who wrote the statement would have testified the plaintiff made the statement. The statement was admissible as part of a business record (hospital record) because it was germane to treatment or diagnosis. The statement was also admissible as a party admission:

“Such records are admissible if the proponent offers either foundational testimony under CPLR 4518(a) or certification under CPLR 4518(c)” … . The defendants should have been permitted to call the nurse to testify to establish a foundation for the admission of the entry from the hospital record as a business record. A hearsay entry in a hospital record is admissible under the business records exception to the hearsay rule if the entry is germane to the diagnosis or treatment of the patient … . Further, “if the entry is inconsistent with a position taken by a party at trial, it is admissible as an admission by that party, even if it is not germane to diagnosis or treatment, as long as there is evidence connecting the party to the entry'” … . In this case, the nurse, had she been permitted to testify, would have provided the evidence connecting the plaintiff to the entry, and, since the entry was inconsistent with the plaintiff's position at trial, which was that she was struck by the vehicle, the entry would be admissible as a party admission. Berkovits v Chaaya, 2016 NY Slip Op 03131, 2nd Dept 4-27-16


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