You are here: / “Employer” of Independent Contractor Not Liable for Contractor’s Alleg...

Search Results

/ ,

“Employer” of Independent Contractor Not Liable for Contractor’s Alleged Negligence

The Fourth Department reversed Supreme Court and granted summary judgment dismissing claims which alleged Sirota, who worked as an independent contractor for defendant Ridgeway, was negligent in advising plaintiff to purchase “certain security and investment vehicles.”  The Fourth Department determined Ridgeway was entitled to summary judgment as Ridgeway had demonstrated it owed no duty of care to plaintiff to supervise Sirota (an independent contractor) because it did not direct or control Sirota’s providing investment advice:

…“[O]rdinarily, a principal is not liable for the acts of independent contractors in that, unlike the master-servant relationship, principals cannot control the manner in which the independent contractors’ work is performed”… . Although there are exceptions to that general rule …, we conclude that none apply to the circumstances presented here.  Although plaintiff’s claim sounds in negligent supervision, one of the recognized exceptions…, it is well settled that “the mere retention of general supervisory powers over an independent contractor cannot form a basis for the imposition of liability against the principal”,,,  Wendt v Bent Pyramid Productions, LLC, et al, 448, 4th Dept 7-5-13

 

/ , , ,

Wage Parity Law Which Conditions Medicaid Reimbursement Upon Paying Home Health Services Workers a Minimum Wage Is Constitutional

In a full-fledged opinion by Justice McCarthy, the Third Department determined the Wage Parity Law (Public Health Law section 3614-c), which conditions Medicaid reimbursement upon paying home health services providers a minimum wage as set in New York City’s Living Wage Law, was constitutional. The court rejected arguments that: (1) the Legislature improperly delegated its authority to New York City; (2) the law improperly incorporated the Living Wage Law by reference; (3) extending the New York City law violated the home rule provision of the NY Constitution; and (5) the statute violated the substantive due process requirements.  Matter of Concerned Home Care Providers, Inc v State of New York, 515737, 3rd Dept 7-3-13

 

/

Employer Policy Re: Firing of Employees Injured in Preventable Accidents Was Discriminatory

The Third Department determined a policy which required probationary employees injured in a preventable accident to be fired, but did not require the firing of uninjured probationary employees who were observed working unsafely, improperly served to dissuade injured employees from seeking Workers’ Compensation:

Workers’ Compensation Law § 120 prohibits an employer from discriminating against  an  employee  because  that employee  either claimed or attempted  to claim workers’ compensation  benefits….  In enacting Workers’ Compensation Law § 120, the Legislature intended “to insure that a claimant [could] exercise his [or her] rights under the [Workers’] Compensation Law  . . . without fear that doing so [might] endanger the continuity of [his or her] employment… .

…[T]he policy …has a discernible impact upon probationary employees who are injured in work-related accidents, i.e., employees who  potentially could seek workers’ compensation  benefits.    The policy  effectively categorizes probationary employees into two groups: those who violate safety rules but are not injured, and those who violate safety rules and  are injured – with only the latter group automatically forfeiting their right to work  for the employer….   Such a policy dissuades those probationary employees who are injured in the course of their employment and wish to remain employed from reporting their injury and pursuing workers’ compensation benefits, which, in turn, runs counter to the Legislature’s intended purpose of insuring that employees  can exercise  their rights under  the  compensation  statutes  “without fear that doing  so may  endanger  the continuity of [their] employment”… .  Matter of Rodriguez v C& S Wholesale Grocers, Inc, 516124, 3rd Dept 7-3-13

 

/

Disability Pre-dated Work at World Trade Center—Worker Entitled to Workers’ Compensation

In reversing a decision of the Workers’ Compensation Board which ruled the employer was not entitled to reimbursement from the Special Disability Fund on the ground that the employee’s lung disease was solely related to work at the World Trade Center, the Third Department wrote:

[The treating doctor] repeatedly expressed  his  opinion  that claimant’s interstitial lung disease was  related to both his exposure at the WTC site and certain exposures throughout his career with the employer, which included exposure to asbestos. …Thus, although reimbursement pursuant to Workers’ Compensation Law § 15 (8) (d) may be denied when a work-related injury is the sole  cause  of  a  permanent  disability…, there is no medical evidence present here to support the Board’s conclusion that claimant’s disability was solely caused by his WTC  site exposure and, therefore, the Fund was inappropriately discharged… . Matter of Surianello, 515055, 3rd Dept 7-3-13

 

/

Employee’s Use of Personal Checking Account Did Not Amount to Misconduct

The Third Department reversed the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board’s denial of benefits finding that, although the practice of depositing money in the employee’s bank account for reimbursement to her and others for out of pocket expenses violated company policy, it did not amount to misconduct:

Even  where  an  employee  has been  fired for legitimate reasons, the “behavior may  fall short of misconduct and, therefore, he  or she  may  still be  entitled to receive benefits”….   Although a knowing violation of an employer’s established policies that has a detrimental effect on  the employer’s interests can  constitute disqualifying  misconduct  …, we find that claimant’s misconduct  in this case did not rise to a disqualifying    level.    While we do not quarrel with the Board’s finding that claimant violated the employer’s established policies, which  provided a basis for terminating her employment, the hearing testimony reveals that claimant’s actions were  in keeping  with a longstanding practice that was at least partially condoned by her former supervisor and were necessary because claimant did not have  check  writing authority… . Matter of Lopresti, 516109, 3rd Dept 7-3-13

 

/

Employer’s Late Request for a Hearing Could Not Be Excused

In affirming the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board’s ruling that an employer’s request for a hearing was untimely, the Third Department noted there was no provision allowing an extension of time:

“Pursuant to Labor Law § 620 (2), an employer has 30 days from the mailing or personal delivery of a contested determination  to  request a  hearing”….  The employer acknowledged receiving the determination, but was unsure of the date of such receipt. Pursuant to the unrebutted presumption found in 12 NYCRR 461.2, the determination was deemed mailed on January 12, 2009 and received by the employer within five days thereafter. Although the employer contends that the admittedly late written request for a hearing was due to law office failure, “the statutory time period in which to request a hearing is to be strictly construed, and the statute contains no  provision permitting an extension of time in which an employer can request a hearing”… . Matter of Agarwal, 515007, 3rd Dept 7-3-13

 

/ ,

Participation in Program Can Be Delayed Until Close to Release Date

In affirming Supreme Court, in the face to the inmate’s request that he be placed in the sex offender counseling and treatment program (SOCTP) in 2015, the Third Department determined  the inmate’s participation in the program could be delayed until 2023, 36 months before his conditional release date:

An inmate’s evaluation by a case review team  under  Mental  Hygiene  Law  §  10.05 is triggered by notice to the Office of Mental  Health that the inmate  is “nearing anticipated release,” which is to be provided at least 120 days prior to such  “anticipated release” (Mental Hygiene  Law  §  10.05 [b]). In accordance with the foregoing, DOCCS has developed guidelines for administering sex offender treatment programs throughout the state. The guidelines recognize the need to allocate limited resources and provide that inmates shall be placed in sex offender treatment programs “as they get closer to their release date.”  Matter of Wakefield, 515002, 3rd Dept 7-3-13

 

/

Policy Exclusions Not Affected by Additional Insured Endorsement

The Second Department explained how the exclusion provisions of a policy are affected by the language of an additional insured endorsement:

Here, the plain meaning of the exclusion … was that the …policy did not provide coverage for damages arising out of bodily injury sustained by an employee of any insured in the course of his or her employment…. Contrary to the plaintiffs’ contentions, the fact that the blanket additional insured endorsement contained its own additional exclusions did not eliminate the exclusions contained in the …policy. In construing an endorsement to an insurance policy, the endorsement and the policy must be read together, and the words of the policy remain in full force and effect except as altered by the words of the endorsement…. Accordingly, since the employee exclusion clause in the …policy unambiguously recited that coverage was precluded, the Supreme Court properly granted … a judgment declaring that [the insurer] is not obligated to defend and indemnify the plaintiffs in the underlying action. Soho Plaza Corp v Birnbaum, 2013 NY Slip Op 05058, 2nd Dept 7-3-13

 

/

Criteria for Easement Granted in General Terms

In determining Supreme Court should have denied defendant’s motion to dismiss, the Second Department explained the criteria for an easement granted in general terms:

Where, as here, an easement is granted in general terms, “the extent of its use includes any reasonable use necessary and convenient for the purpose for which it is created”…. Further, the holder of an access easement “cannot materially increase the burden of the servient estate or impose new and additional burdens on the servient estate” … . Shuttle Contr Corp v Peikarian, 2013 NY Slip Op 05057, 2nd Dept 7-3-13

 

/ ,

No Need for Proof of Agent’s Authority—Five-Day Notice Demanding Rent Valid

The Second Department determined a five-day notice demanding unpaid rent under a lease was not invalid because it was signed by a purported agent of the landlord without proof of the agent’s authority to act for the landlord.  In so finding, the Second Department distinguished a case relied upon by the tenant:

…[T]he Appellate Term properly distinguished this Court’s decision in Siegel v Kentucky Fried Chicken of Long Is. (108 AD2d at 221). … Siegel is limited to the “factual peculiarities” of the lease in that case. The lease in Siegel, unlike the lease in the case at bar, designated certain rights that were to be exercised by “the Landlord or Landlord’s agent[ ]” and designated the landlord’s attorney by name, while the three-day forfeiture notice that was the subject of that dispute was sent by another attorney, who was unknown to the tenant …. The relevant provision of the lease herein (hereinafter the notice provision), provided that the “Landlord shall give Tenant written notice of default stating the type of default,” and, unlike the lease in Siegel, did not expressly obligate [landlord] to act only personally or through an identified agent. Consequently, although the notice indicated that it was signed by [landlord’s] previously unidentified agent, the failure to include evidence of the agent’s authority to bind the landlord, which we found necessary in Siegel, did not render [landlord] noncompliant with the requirements of the notice provision (see RPAPL 711[2]), and did not render the notice invalid. Matter of QPII-143-45 Sanford Ave, LLC v Spinner, 2013 NY Slip Op 05083, 2nd Dept 7-3-13

 

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