You are here: / LIABILITY UNDER LABOR LAW 200 DOES NOT REQUIRE THAT PLAINTIFF BE ENGAGED...

Search Results

/

LIABILITY UNDER LABOR LAW 200 DOES NOT REQUIRE THAT PLAINTIFF BE ENGAGED IN CONSTRUCTION WORK; HERE PLAINTIFF FELL OFF THE TOP OF A TRACTOR-TRAILER; THE LABOR LAW 200 CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s Labor Law 200 cause of action should not have been dismissed. The court noted that liability under Labor Law 200 does not require that the plaintiff be engaged in construction work:

Plaintiff was injured when he fell to the ground from the top of a tractor-trailer, as he was attempting to manually roll out a tarp to cover trash in the trailer, as required by [defendant] Tully. The trailer with the allegedly defective tarping mechanism was owned by Strength and leased to plaintiff’s employer.

Plaintiff is entitled to the protection afforded by Labor Law § 200 for his work because that section codifies the common-law duty of an owner to provide workers with a safe place to work, which is not limited to construction work … .

The record presents an issue of fact as to Tully’s authority to control the activity that brought about plaintiff’s injury … . Plaintiff testified that Tully directed him in how to proceed at the facility and mandated that he cover the trash with the tarp, and the facility manager testified that Tully had a policy prohibiting drivers from standing on the tops of trailers. There is also a factual issue as to whether Tully permitting the tractor-trailer to be overfilled created the condition that may have cause plaintiff’s injuries … . Landron v Wil-Cor Realty Co. Inc., 2020 NY Slip Op 05287, First Dept 10-1-20

 

/ ,

ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT WAS NOT INFORMED OF THE PERIOD OF POST-RELEASE SUPERVISION AT THE ORIGINAL PLEA AND SENTENCING, HE WAS SO INFORMED AT RESENTENCING; DEFENDANT HAD AN OPPORTUNITY AT RESENTENCING TO MOVE TO WITHDRAW HIS PLEA AND THE SENTENCING JUDGE WAS NOT OBLIGATED TO INFORM DEFENDANT, SUA SPONTE, OF THE AVAILABILITY OF A MOTION TO WITHDRAW; DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO SET ASIDE HIS RESENTENCE PROPERLY DENIED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined defendant’s motion to set aside his resentence was properly denied. Defendant was not informed of the period of post-release supervision (PRS) at the time of the original plea and the original sentence, but was so informed at the resentence:

In 2002, defendant pleaded guilty without being informed of the mandatory postrelease supervision (PRS) component of the promised sentence … , and was sentenced in a proceeding in which the court also did not pronounce that component of the sentence … . Seven years later, he was returned to court with his attorney for further proceedings. Defense counsel advised the court that he had spoken to his client who was prepared to accept the amended sentence. The court explained that five years of PRS would be imposed. Defense counsel responded that that was fine. The court then resentenced defendant to a term that included the mandatory PRS period … .

… Defendant was not denied a meaningful opportunity, at resentencing, to seek to withdraw his plea based on the plea court’s failure to inform him that his sentence was required to include PRS. Generally, a defendant is entitled to an opportunity to withdraw a plea where a sentence exceeds the original promise. However, we find no support for defendant’s argument that this places a sua sponte obligation on the court to inform a counseled defendant of the right to move for plea withdrawal … . People v Perez, 2020 NY Slip Op 05297, First Dept 10-1-20

 

/ ,

A NOTICE OF LIEN CAN NOT BE DISCHARGED ABSENT A TRIAL IF IT IS VALID ON ITS FACE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the notice of lien should not have been discharged because it was valid on its face:

… Supreme Court … granted the motion of defendants … to reduce or discharge the mechanic’s lien filed by plaintiff … to the extent of reducing the lien from $33,837,618.34 to $3,566,357.42 … .

A court has no inherent power to vacate, modify or discharge a notice of lien pursuant to Lien Law § 19(6) where there is no defect on the face of the lien, and any dispute concerning the lien’s validity must await a trial … . Pizzarotti, LLC v FPG Maiden Lane LLC, 2020 NY Slip Op 05305, First Dept 10-1-20

 

/ , , ,

PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT’S AFFIDAVIT DID NOT ADDRESS THE CLAIM ASSOCIATED WITH TOOTH NUMBER 28 IN THIS DENTAL MALPRACTICE ACTION; THEREFORE DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THAT CLAIM SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, noted that the plaintiff’s expert’s affidavit did not address the plaintiff’s dental malpractice claim with respect to one tooth (tooth number 28). Therefore defendant’s motion for summary judgment should have been granted on that claim:

Even assuming, as defendant claims, that plaintiff would still have had to undergo future dental work had these six teeth been saved, and that any disfigurement was not fairly attributable to defendant because plaintiff opted to have another dentist install her dentures, these facts do not negate the primary injury claimed by plaintiff — the unnecessary loss of these teeth. It is immaterial that plaintiff’s expert did not indicate that he or she had reviewed plaintiff or her husband’s deposition testimony, as review of these documents was not necessary to make an informed determination about the appropriateness of treatment. * * *

However, defendant’s motion for summary judgment should have been granted insofar as plaintiff’s claims are directed at tooth number 28, because plaintiff’s expert failed to raise an issue of fact regarding a departure of care with respect to this tooth. Castro v Yakobashvilli, 2020 NY Slip Op 05281, First Dept 10-1-20

 

/ , , ,

WHEN THE MERITS OF A MOTION TO REARGUE ARE ADDRESSED THE DENIAL IS APPEALABLE; THE PERSONAL SERVICE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE NOTICE OF SALE PURSUANT TO THE LIEN LAW WERE NOT MET, THEREFORE THE 10-DAY PERIOD FOR BRINGING A SPECIAL PROCEEDING TO CONTEST THE VALIDITY OF THE LIEN DID NOT START TO RUN (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department noted that where the court addresses the merits of a motion to reargue it will be deemed to have granted the motion to reargue for purposes of appeal. Therefore, although the denial of a motion to reargue is not appealable, the denial after addressing the merits is appealable. In that case the motion is treated as if the motion to reargue were granted and then the original decision was adhered to. The court also noted that the requirements for the personal service of a notice of sale were not met in this case. Therefore the 10-day period for bringing a special proceeding to determined the validity of the lien did not start to run:

“Although, generally, no appeal lies from an order denying a motion to reargue, where the court actually addresses the merits of the moving party’s motion, we will deem the court to have granted reargument and adhered to its prior decision — notwithstanding language in the order indicating that reargument was denied” … . * * *

Under Lien Law §201-a, petitioner’s 10-day time period to “commence a special proceeding to determine the validity of the lien” does not begin to run until service upon it of the “notice of sale” by respondent, the lienor. Service of such notice of sale by the lienor must be effectuated by personal service “within the county where [the] lien arose,” unless the person to be served “cannot with due diligence be found within such county” (Lien Law § 201). … As Supreme Court correctly found, and as the record reflects, respondent failed to submit any proof that it exercised due diligence in seeking to effect personal service upon petitioner of the notice of lien and sale before improperly resorting to the statutory alternative of certified mail service. As a result, the 10-day time limitation for petitioner to challenge the lien under Lien Law § 201-a did not begin to run … . Matter of Manufacturers & Traders Trust Co. v J.D. Mar. Serv., 2020 NY Slip Op 05260, Third Dept 10-1-20

 

/ ,

AN UNPAID PENALTY ASSESSED FOR DEFENDANT’S FAILURE TO MAINTAIN WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COVERAGE WAS ENTERED AS A SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT BY THE COUNTY CLERK IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW; BY THE TERMS OF THE STATUTE, SUPREME COURT DID NOT HAVE SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION AND DEFENDANT COULD NOT MOVE TO VACATE THE DEFAULT JUDGMENT (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined a judgment entered in Supreme Court by the county clerk pursuant to the Workers’ Compensation Law 26  is not reviewable by Supreme Court. The Workers’ Compensation Board assessed a penalty against defendant for failure to maintain workers’ compensation coverage. When the penalty was not paid the judgment was entered by the county clerk as a ministerial act which cannot be addressed by a motion in Supreme Court to vacate a default judgment:

Defendants … ignore the peculiar statutory scheme by which only this Court may review a final determination by plaintiff with respect to, among other things, assessments ordered pursuant to Workers’ Compensation Law § 52 (5) up until the time that a judgment against an employer is entered. At that point, no appeal is permitted … .

Workers’ Compensation Law § 26 provides that where an employer fails to pay an assessment imposed pursuant to Workers’ Compensation Law § 52 (5) within 20 days after it is due, plaintiff’s chair may file a certified copy of the order imposing such assessment with the county clerk where the employer’s principal place of business is maintained. “[T]hereupon[,] judgment must be entered in the [S]upreme [C]ourt, by the clerk of such county in conformity therewith immediately upon such filing. . . . Such judgment shall be entered in the same manner, have the same effect and be subject to the same proceedings as though rendered in a suit duly heard and determined by the [S]upreme [C]ourt, except that no appeal may be taken therefrom” (Workers’ Compensation Law § 26 …). The entry of such judgment is “merely a ministerial act” made pursuant to Workers’ Compensation Law § 26 … . Indeed, the statute provides that the court shall “vacate or modify” the judgment only “to conform to any later award or decision of [plaintiff]” and “[t]he award may be so compromised [only] by [plaintiff and] in the discretion of [plaintiff]” (Workers’ Compensation Law § 26). Inasmuch as the entry of plaintiff’s order here by the County Clerk was “merely a ministerial act” … , Supreme Court lacked the authority to vacate the judgment because the underlying order was not issued by the court … . …

To allow defendants to petition a different court to vacate its default after judgment has been entered would undermine this statutory scheme by allowing a court other than this one to, in effect, review a final decision of plaintiff. Workers’ Compensation Bd. of the State of N.Y. v Williams Auto Parts Inc., 2020 NY Slip Op 05261, Third Dept 10-1-20

 

/ ,

CLAIMANT TRUCK DRIVER WAS AN EMPLOYEE OF FLS UNDER THE COMMON LAW AND UNDER THE LABOR LAW, DESPITE THE FACT THAT FLS DID NOT MAINTAIN A FLEET OF TRUCKS; CLAIMANT WAS THEREFORE ENTITLED TO UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined Fundamental Labor Strategies (FLS) was claimant truck driver’s employer, pursuant to common law and the Labor Law (NYS Commercial Goods Transportation Industry Fair Play Act), despite the fact FLS did not maintain a fleet of trucks:

Labor Law § 862-b (1) provides, in relevant part, that “[a]ny person performing commercial goods transportation services for a commercial goods transportation contractor shall be classified as an employee of the commercial goods transportation contractor unless” such person is either a separate business entity as defined by Labor Law § 862-b (2) or an independent contractor within the meaning of Labor Law § 862-b (1) (a)-(c). The statutory scheme further defines “commercial goods transportation services” as “the transportation of goods for compensation by a driver who possesses a state-issued driver’s license, transports goods in . . . New York, and operates a commercial motor vehicle” (Labor Law § 862-a [3]), and a “commercial goods transportation contractor” includes any legal entity that compensates a driver for performing such services (Labor Law § 862-a [1]). …

FLS falls squarely within the definition of a commercial goods transportation contractor as set forth in Labor Law § 862-a (1). Hence, the statutory presumption of employment applies in the first instance (see Labor Law § 862-b [1]).

To overcome the statutory presumption, FLS needed to establish that claimant was “free from control and direction in performing [his] job,” both under the terms of his letter agreement with FLS and “in fact” (Labor Law § 862-b [1] [a]), that the services rendered by claimant were “performed outside [FLS’s] usual course of business” (Labor Law § 862-b [1] [b]) and that claimant was “customarily engaged in an independently established trade, occupation, profession, or business that is similar to the service” he performed for FLS (Labor Law § 862-b [1] [c]). All three criteria — commonly referred to as the ABC test — had to be met in order for claimant to be classified as an independent contractor (see Labor Law § 862-b [1]).

… [S]ubstantial evidence supports the Board’s finding that FLS failed to establish that claimant was free from direction and control in performing his job. Matter of Doster (Fundamental Labor Strategies–Commissioner of Labor), 2020 NY Slip Op 05262, Third Dept 10-1-20

 

/

CLAIMANT, A HAIRCARE PRODUCT SALES REPRESENTATIVE, WAS NOT AN EMPLOYEE OF THE PRODUCER OF THE HAIRCARE PRODUCTS AND THEREFORE WAS NOT ENTITLED TO UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BENEFITS (THIRD DEPT). ​

The Third Department, reversing the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, determined claimant, a haircare product sales representative, was not an employee of Alterna Holding Corporation, the producer of the haircare products:

Alterna Holding Corporation produces haircare products that are sold at various retail stores. To facilitate its business, Alterna places sales and education representatives at the stores. These representatives educate store employees and customers about Alterna’s products. Claimant was a representative for Alterna at Sephora stores in the New York City area from April 2012 to September 2014. * * *

The record reflects that claimant received no initial training or instruction on how to perform her duties. Claimant was not required to submit reports, attend meetings or regularly check in with Alterna. Claimant was not responsible for supplying the product to the Sephora stores, and the sales of the product were carried out by Sephora employees. Although Alterna provided claimant with a list of Sephora stores for her to visit, she was not required to visit all the stores on the list if she did not want to, and claimant testified that there were some stores that she never visited. Claimant was never supervised while at the stores or had her performance reviewed. Claimant was advised to work five days a week, but she set her own schedule and she could take time off, including a week at a time, without notifying Alterna. Matter of Jordan (Alterna Holdings Corp.–Commissioner of Labor), 2020 NY Slip Op 05266, Third Dept 10-1-20

 

/

CLAIMANT DELIVERY DRIVER WAS AN EMPLOYEE OF A BUSINESS LOGISTICS COMPANY WHICH ARRANGED DELIVERIES FOR ITS CLIENTS; CLAIMANT WAS THEREFORE ENTITLED TO UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BENEFITS (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined claimant delivery driver was an employee of TN Couriers (TNC) entitled to unemployment insurance benefits:

TN Couriers LLC (hereinafter TNC) is a business logistics company that acts as a broker between delivery drivers and clients seeking to have products transported from one location to another. Claimant was retained by TNC to deliver auto parts for The Radiator Store, one of TNC’s clients. * * *

Although the daily delivery activities of claimant and other drivers were directed by TNC’s client, TNC retained control over other important aspects of the work. These included screening driver applicants, assigning drivers to clients, setting the rate of pay, partially reimbursing expenses, establishing performance standards, requiring valid licenses and insurance, and handling client complaints. In view of this, we find that substantial evidence supports the Board’s finding that TNC exercised a sufficient indicia of control over claimant to be deemed his employer and liable for additional contributions … . Matter of Murray (TN Couriers LLC–Commissioner of Labor), 2020 NY Slip Op 05269, Third Dept 10-1-20

 

/

CLAIMANT WAS SIMULTANEOUSLY ENTITLED TO A SCHEDULE LOSS OF USE (SLU) AWARD AND A PERMANENT PARTIAL DISABILITY CLASSIFICATION (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing (modifying) the Workers’ Compensation Board, determined claimant was simultaneously entitled to an award for a schedule loss of use [SLU] and a permanent partial disability classification:

For the reasons more fully discussed in Matter of Arias v City of New York (182 AD3d 170, 172 [2020]), we agree with claimant’s contention that the Board erred in disregarding or attempting to distinguish Matter of Taher [162 AD3d 1288] … . Under Matter of Taher, a claimant who sustains both schedule and nonschedule permanent injuries in the same work-related accident and returns to work at preinjury wages — and, thus, has not received a reduced-earnings award based upon a nonschedule permanent partial disability classification (see Workers’ Compensation Law § 15 [3]) — is entitled to an SLU [schedule loss of use] award for permanent partial impairments to the statutorily enumerated body parts, here, claimant’s knee and possibly his left elbow (see Workers’ Compensation Law § 15 [3] [a] …). Matter of Garrison-Bey v Department of Educ., 2020 NY Slip Op 05273, Third Dept 10-1-20

 

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