You are here: / Agency
, ,

THE BROKERAGE AGREEMENT DID NOT GIVE PLAINTIFF THE EXCLUSIVE RIGHT TO NEGOTIATE A LOAN ON DEFENDANT’S BEHALF; THEREFORE PLAINTIFF WAS NOT ENTITLED TO A COMMISSION ON A LOAN PROCURED BY DEFENDANT WITHOUT PLAINTIFF’S ASSISTANCE; “EXCLUSIVE RIGHT TO …” CRITERIA IN THIS CONTEXT EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Warhit, determined the brokerage agreement did not give plaintiff the right to a commission when the defendant procured financing on its own:

This appeal presents the opportunity to examine the law of brokerage agreements granting an “exclusive right to sell,” as well as the application of such agreements outside the context of transactions involving the sale or lease of real property. In the present case, the plaintiff broker contends that it had an exclusive agreement to secure certain financing on behalf of the defendant and that it was entitled to a commission even though it was not the procuring cause of a loan the defendant ultimately obtained. * * *

The agreement did not clearly and expressly provide the plaintiff with the exclusive right to deal or negotiate on the defendant’s behalf … . The defendant demonstrated that the plaintiff was not the procuring cause of the loan … . Angelic Real Estate, LLC v Aurora Props., LLC, 2025 NY Slip Op 04223, Second Dept 7-23-25

Practice Point: Consult this opinion for an explanation of the contractual terms necessary to confer on a broker an exclusive right to procure a loan, such that a commission is owed even when the loan is procured without the broker’s assistance (not the case here).

 

, , , ,

ALTHOUGH PETITIONER NURSING HOME, A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, HAD AN EXCELLENT INFECTION CONTROL PROGRAM, IT WAS PROPERLY FINED FOR A VIOLATION OF THE INFECTION-CONTROL REGULATIONS BY ONE OF ITS EMPLOYEES (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, confirming the findings of the administrative law judge, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Egan, determined the petitioner nursing-home-facility was subject to fines for violations of the COVID-19 infection-control regulations. The regulations required nursing home employees to change gowns and glove after being in a unit with COVID-19 positive residents. The court noted that petitioner, as a limited liability company, can be penalized for the intentional violation of regulations by its employees under an agency theory:

… [P]etitioner [limited liability company], like corporations and similar entities, may be penalized “for the intentional acts of its agents that are either (1) in violation of positive prohibitions or commands of statutes regarding corporate acts, (2) authorized through action of its officers or which are done with the acquiescence of its officers, or (3) performed on behalf of the corporation if undertaken within the scope of the agents’ authority, real or apparent” … . As it is alleged here that a regulation governing petitioner’s conduct was intentionally violated by one of its employees in the course of his work, petitioner may be penalized for that conduct, if proven. * * *

Petitioner had no deficiencies in the five infection control surveys conducted in the months leading up to the December 2020 survey, counsel for the Department conceded at the hearing that it “had a great infection control program for many months,” and the surveyor who witnessed the violation acknowledged that petitioner had developed an appropriate infection control plan and properly trained employees about their obligations under it. Respondent was nevertheless free to credit the proof that the aide violated that policy on one occasion in December 2020 and, notwithstanding petitioner’s efforts to argue otherwise, we are satisfied that such constitutes substantial evidence in the record for the determination that petitioner’s employee “violate[d], disobey[ed] or disregard[ed]” multiple provisions of 10 NYCRR 415.19 and the infection control program in the course of his work and that such rendered petitioner liable (Public Health Law § 12). Matter of RSRNC, LLC v McDonald, 2025 NY Slip Op 04131, Third Dept 7-10-25

Practice Point: Here a violation of Public Health Law regulations concerning COVID-19 infection control by an employee of petitioner nursing home, a limited liability company, warranted imposing a penalty on the nursing home.

 

, ,

ALTHOUGH A CONSTRUCTION MANAGER IS GENERALLY NOT LIABLE FOR INJURIES TO A WORKER UNDER LABOR LAW 240(1) OR 241(6), HERE THE CONSTRUCTION MANAGER, BY CONTRACT, WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR SAFETY AT THE WORKSITE AND SUPERVISED THE WORK; THEREFORE THE CONSTRUCTION MANAGER WAS A STATUTORY AGENT OF THE PROPERTY OWNER AND POTENTIALLY LIABLE UNDER LABOR LAW 240(1) (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the construction manager, Tishman, was the property owner’s statutory agent in charge of safety at the worksite. Therefore Tishman could be liable for injury to a worker pursuant to Labor Law 240(1):

“A construction manager of a work site is generally not responsible for injuries under Labor Law . . . [§ ] 240(1) . . . or § 241(6) unless it functions as an agent of the property owner or general contractor in circumstances where it has the ability to control the activity which brought about the injury” … . “The label given a defendant, whether ‘construction manager’ or ‘general contractor,’ is not determinative” … . “Instead, the core inquiry is whether the defendant had the ‘authority to supervise or control the activity bringing about the injury so as to enable it to avoid or correct the unsafe condition'” … .

Here, in support of his motion for summary judgment, the plaintiff submitted the construction management services contract, which charged Tishman with, inter alia, enforcing subcontractors’ compliance with safety requirements and taking precautions to minimize the risk of injuries. The contract further gave Tishman the right to choose the means and methods of construction. Although Tishman did not directly supervise or control the plaintiff’s work, Tishman’s safety manager for the project testified at his deposition that he was “in charge of safety at . . . [the] project full-time.” In addition, a foreperson for another trade testified at his deposition that Tishman would correct other workers who were performing their work in an unsafe manner. Under these circumstances, Tishman was a statutory agent of DDC and was, therefore, potentially liable for the plaintiff’s alleged injuries under Labor Law § 240(1) … . Weekes v Tishman Tech. Corp., 2025 NY Slip Op 02959, Second Dept 5-14-25

Practice Point: Although a construction manager is generally not liable to an injured worker under Labor Law 240(1) or 241(6), here the construction manager was, by contract, a statutory agent of the property owner responsible for the supervision of the work and the safety of the workers. Statutory agents of the property owner or general contractor are potentially liable to injured workers under Labor Law 240(1) and 241(6).

 

,

THE CONTRACTOR THAT HIRED THE SUBCONTRACTOR FOR WHICH THE INJURED PLAINTIFF WORKED WAS THE CONDOMINIUM DEFENDANTS’ STATUTORY AGENT AND THEREFORE CAN BE HELD LIABLE IN THIS LABOR LAW 240(1) ACTION (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined defendant Chelsea, the contractor that hired the subcontractor, Prince, for which the injured plaintiff worked, was the statutory agent of the condominium defendants in this Labor Law 240(1) case. Therefore the action against Chelsea should not have been dismissed:

Supreme Court improperly dismissed Chelsea from this action on the ground that it is not the condo defendants’ statutory agent for purposes of Labor Law § 240(1) liability. Chelsea was the only contractor that the condo defendants retained to perform their window-washing project, and Chelsea cannot escape liability under Labor Law § 240(1) because it delegated the work by subcontracting it to Prince, plaintiff’s employer … . Chelsea’s authority to supervise and control the work is also demonstrated by its subcontracting the work to Prince, and whether Chelsea actually supervised plaintiff’s work is irrelevant … . Barreto v Board of Mgrs. of 545 W. 110th St. Condominium, 2025 NY Slip Op 00185, First Dept 1-14-25

Practice Point: Liability under Labor Law 240(1) extends to the statutory agent of the property owner, here the contractor that hired the subcontractor for which the injured plaintiff worked.

 

, , , ,

PURSUANT TO THE NEW YORK CITY HUMAN RIGHTS LAW, PROPERTY OWNERS (LANDLORDS) MAY BE HELD VICARIOUSLY LIABLE FOR THE DISCRIMINATORY CONDUCT OF THEIR AGENTS IN DEALING WITH PROSPECTIVE TENANTS (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Kennedy, determined the owners of housing accommodations may be vicariously liable (pursuant to the NYC Human Rights Law) for discrimination by their agents who deal with prospective tenants. Here plaintiff is an indigent person with AIDS. The complaint alleges he was denied housing by defendant, who acted as an agent for defendant property owners:

… [A]bsent vicarious liability, landlords would evade liability under the City HRL except when they directly interact with a prospective tenant. This is neither the mandate of the statute, nor supported by the legislative intent behind § 8-107 of the City HRL … .

The text of the City HRL also supports the imposition of vicarious liability upon landlords. Specifically, the key statutory remedy in the City HRL for housing discrimination is to approve the rental and to provide housing (see Administrative Code § 8-120[a][7]). Moreover, §§ 8-122 and 8-502 permit a tenant allegedly aggrieved by discriminatory practices to seek injunctive relief. In the absence of vicarious liability against owners, who have title to the prospective property, these remedies would be unavailable and rendered meaningless … . Newson v Vivaldi Real Estate LTD., 2025 NY Slip Op 00052, First Dept 1-7-25

Practice Point: Pursuant to the NYC Human Rights Law, landlords may be vicariously liable for the discriminatory conduct of their agents in dealing with prospective tenants.

 

, ,

ABSENT SELF-INTEREST OR SELF-DEALING, AN ATTORNEY CAN NOT BE LIABLE TO A THIRD PERSON FOR INDUCING THE CLIENT TO BREACH A CONTRACT WITH THAT THIRD PERSON (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined that the attorney’s (Treco’s) inducing his client (Reynolds) to breach a contract with a third person is not actionable:

“[I]nasmuch as the relationship created between an attorney and his [or her] client is that of principal and agent, an attorney is not liable for inducing his [or her] principal to breach a contract with a third person, at least where he [or she] is acting on behalf of his [or her] principal within the scope of his [or her] authority” … . “Absent a showing of fraud or collusion, or of a malicious or tortious act, an attorney is not liable to third parties for purported injuries caused by services performed on behalf of a client or advice offered to that client” … . Here, the Treco defendants demonstrated, prima facie, that Treco was acting on Reynolds’s behalf and within the scope of Treco’s authority as Reynolds’s attorney … . In opposition, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact. The evidence cited by the plaintiffs did not support a finding that Treco’s acts in representing Reynolds were motivated by any self-interest or self-dealing or that the acts personally benefitted Treco … . Kugel v Reynolds, 2024 NY Slip Op 03173, Second Dept 6-12-24

Practice Point: Absent self-interest or self-dealing, and attorney is not liable to a third person for inducing a client to breach a contract with that third person.

 

, ,

PLAINTIFF ALLEGED THE DRIVER WORKING FOR A LIVERY CAB COMPANY (CURB) AND THE NEW YORK CITY TRANSIT AUTHORITY (NYCTA) DROPPED HIM OFF NEAR A HOLE IN THE ROAD WHICH CAUSED HIM TO FALL; THE RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR (AGENCY) CAUSE OF ACTION SURVIVED; BUT THE COMPLAINT DID NOT SUPPORT THE NEGLIGENT HIRING, RETENTION AND SUPERVISION CAUSE OF ACTION (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the complaint did not state a cause of action for negligent hiring, retention and supervision. Plaintiff alleged the driver of car which provided a service to the New York City Transit Authority (NYCTA) through a livery cab company called Curb was negligent in dropping plaintiff off near a hole in the road. Although the negligence action against the NYCTA and Curb survived under an agency (respondeat superior) theory, there were no factual allegations in the complaint which supported the negligent hiring, retention and supervision cause of action:

“An employer can be held liable under theories of negligent hiring, retention, and supervision where it is shown that the employer knew or should have known of the employee’s propensity for the conduct which caused the injury” … . “[A] necessary element of such causes of action is that the employer knew or should have known of the employee’s propensity for the conduct which caused the injury” … . Although such causes of action need not be pleaded with specificity … , the complaint must contain more than bare legal conclusions unsupported by factual allegations … . Here, the complaint did not allege that Curb or the NYCTA knew or should have known of the driver’s propensity for the conduct which caused the injury, nor contain any factual allegations to support such an inference. The bare legal conclusions were insufficient to state a cause of action alleging negligent hiring, training, and retention … . Bailey v City of New York, 2024 NY Slip Op 03156, Second Dept 6-12-24

Practice Point: Conclusory, as opposed to fact-based, allegations of negligent hiring, retention and supervision will not survive a pre-discovery motion to dismiss.

 

, , ,

A MANAGING AGENT IS NOT LIABLE FOR INJURY CAUSED BY A DANGEROUS CONDITION ON THE MANAGED PROPERTY UNLESS THE MANAGING AGENT EXERCISES COMPLETE AND EXCLUSIVE CONTROL OVER THE OPERATION OF THE PROPERTY (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the property managing agent did not exercise complete and exclusive control of the operation of the property and therefore could not be held liable for plaintiff’s trip and fall over a stub-up pipe protruding from a step:

Supreme Court should have granted that branch of the defendants’ motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against CBRE [the managing agent] on the ground that CBRE does not own, operate, or control the premises. “Where, as here, a managing agent is accused of nonfeasance which causes injury to a third party, it is subject to liability only where it has complete and exclusive control of the management and operation of the property in question” … . “A managing agent is not in complete and exclusive control of the premises where the owner has reserved to itself a certain amount of control in the written agreement” … .

Here, CBRE established, prima facie, that it was a managing agent of the premises and that the management agreement was not so comprehensive and exclusive as to displace the duty of the owner of the premises to maintain the premises safely … . Quezada v CBRE, Inc., 2024 NY Slip Op 01829, Second Dept 4-3-24

Practice Point: A managing agent is not liable for injury caused by a dangerous condition on the managed property unless the agent exercises complete and exclusive control over the operation of the property.

 

, , ,

THE PLAINTIFF IN THIS WRONGFUL DEATH ACTION AGAINST DEFENDANT NURSING HOME IS THE DECEDENT’S DAUGHTER AND HAD SIGNED THE ADMISSION AGREEMENT AS THE “RESPONSIBLE PARTY;” THE LANGUAGE OF THE AGREEMENT DID NOT CREATE AN AGENCY RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PLAINTIFF AND HER MOTHER; THE ARBITRATION CLAUSE IN THE ADMISSION AGREEMENT COULD NOT, THEREFORE, BE ENFORCED BY THE NURSING HOME (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the defendant nursing home’s (the Facility’s) motion to compel arbitration of the wrongful death action should not have been granted. The admission agreement had been signed by plaintiff, not the decedent (the resident of the nursing home). The admission agreement referred to plaintiff as the “responsible party” who was “primarily responsible to assist the [decedent] to meet … her obligations under [the agreement].” But there was no indication the decedent agreed to have plaintiff act on her behalf:

“Essential to the creation of apparent authority are words or conduct of the principal, communicated to a third party, that give rise to the appearance and belief that the agent possesses authority to enter into a transaction. The agent cannot by [her or] his own acts imbue [herself or] himself with apparent authority. Rather, the existence of apparent authority depends upon a factual showing that the third party relied upon the misrepresentation of the agent because of some misleading conduct on the part of the principal — not the agent. Moreover, a third party with whom the agent deals may rely on an appearance of authority only to the extent that such reliance is reasonable” … .

… [T]he Facility failed to demonstrate that it reasonably relied upon any word or action of the decedent to conclude that the plaintiff had the apparent authority to enter into the agreement or to bind the decedent to arbitration on the decedent’s behalf … . To the extent that the Facility contends that it reasonably relied upon the plaintiff’s own acts, this contention is also without merit, as an agent cannot “by [her] own acts imbue [her]self with apparent authority” … . … [T]he plaintiff’s status as the decedent’s daughter did not give rise to an agency relationship … . Lisi v New York Ctr. for Rehabilitation & Nursing, 2024 NY Slip Op 01171, Second Dept 3-6-24

Practice Point: Here decedent’s daughter signed the nursing-home admission agreement as the “responsible party.” Because there was no indication decedent agreed to have her daughter act on her behalf, the nursing home could not claim the daughter had the “apparent authority” to bind decedent to the agreement. Therefore the nursing home could not enforce the arbitration clause in the wrongful death action.

 

,

ONLY CONTRACTORS AND OWNERS AND THEIR AGENTS CAN BE LIABLE UNDER LABOR LAW 240(1) AND 241(6); HERE DEFENDANT DEMONSTRATED IT WAS NOT AN AGENT FOR ANY POTENTIALLY LIABLE PARTY BECAUSE IT EXERCISED NO SUPERVISORY CONTROL OVER THE WORKSITE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the Labor Law 240(1) and 241(6) causes of action against one defendant (G Buddy) should have been dismissed because G Buddy had no control or supervisory duties at the worksite:

The express terms of Labor Law §§ 240 and 241(6) provide that “the nondelegable duties imposed by those statutes apply only to ‘contractors and owners and their agents'” … . “To hold a defendant liable as an agent of the general contractor or the owner for violations of Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6), there must be a showing that it had the authority to supervise and control the work that brought about the injury” … . Here, G Buddy established, prima facie, that it was not an agent of either the Board or the contractor at the time of the plaintiff’s accident by submitting evidence demonstrating that G Buddy had no control over or supervisory responsibilities on the worksite … . Hossain v Condominium Bd. of Grand Professional Bldg., 2023 NY Slip Op 06128, Second Dept 11-29-23

Practice Point: In order to hold a party liable under Labor Law 240(1) or 241(6) as an agent of a contractor or owner, the party must have exercised supervisory control over the worksite.

 

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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy