You are here: / Agency
, , ,

ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT WAS NOT BOARD CERTIFIED IN EMERGENCY MEDICINE, THE EXPERT SET FORTH A SUFFICIENT FOUNDATION FOR THE OPINION; THE HOSPITAL DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT COULD NOT BE HELD VICARIOUSLY LIABLE FOR TREATMENT BY AN INDEPENDENT PHYSICIAN (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the medical malpractice action should not have been dismissed. Plaintiff’s medical expert need not be board certified in emergency medicine to be qualified to offer an opinion. The hospital did not demonstrate it could not be held vicariously liable for the care provided by an independent physician:

Contrary to the defendants’ contention, the plaintiffs’ expert was qualified to offer an opinion despite not being board certified in emergency medicine. “‘A physician need not be a specialist in a particular field to qualify as a medical expert and any alleged lack of knowledge . . . [or] expertise goes to the weight and not the admissibility of the testimony'” … . Here, the plaintiffs’ expert set forth a sufficient foundation for his or her opinion, based on his or her clinical experience and familiarity with the applicable standards of care … . …

… [G]enerally, a hospital may not be held vicariously liable for the negligence of a private attending physician chosen by the patient … . “However, an exception to the rule that a hospital may not be held vicariously liable for the treatment provided by an independent physician applies where a patient comes to the emergency room seeking treatment from the hospital and not from a particular physician of the patient’s choosing, or a nonemployee physician otherwise acted as an agent of the hospital or the hospital exercised control over the physician” … . Here, the defendants failed to demonstrate, prima facie, that [the hospital] was free from vicarious liability for [plaintiff’s] care and treatment in its emergency department as a matter of law … . Valitutto v Staten Is. Univ. Hosp., 2026 NY Slip Op 03020, Second Dept 5-13-26

Practice Point: Here plaintiff’s expert was qualified to offer an opinion despite not being board certified in emergency medicine.

Practice Point: Here the hospital did not demonstrate it could not be held vicariously liable for treatment by an independent physician.

 

, , ,

THE DREXEL UNIVERSITY COOPERATIVE EDUCATION PROGRAM (CO-OP) ARRANGES FOR STUDENTS TO WORK FOR PARTICIPATING EMPLOYERS FOR COLLEGE CREDIT; DREXEL DID NOT EXERCISE SUFFICIENT SUPERVISION OVER THE STUDENTS TO BE HELD VICARIOUSLY LIABLE FOR ANY WORKPLACE NEGLIGENCE ON THE STUDENTS’ PART (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant Drexel University was not the employer of two students who were operating a forklift which allegedly caused injury to plaintiff. The students were participating in a Drexel Cooperative Education Program. The Second Department found that Drexel was not exercising sufficient supervision and control over the students such that Drexel could be held vicariously liable for the forklift accident:

… [T]he Drexel Cooperative Education Program [the co-op] … permits students to apply for and obtain paid work experience with participating employers for a period of up to six months. * * *

Drexel demonstrated, prima facie, that it lacked the requisite control over the students’ work and conduct during their employment with Jaidan [a participating co-op employer] to give rise to either an employer-employee or principal-agent relationship. Drexel’s evidence demonstrated that it provided an online recruiting platform on which students searched job descriptions submitted by participating employers and applied for jobs with those employers. Drexel also required that students work 32 hours per week to receive academic credit for the co-op, that students follow Drexel’s code of conduct during the co-op, and that students complete a survey at the end of the co-op to report on their experience. However, the co-op employers decided whether to hire a particular student, paid the co-op students’ salaries, and provided IRS documents. Additionally, employers set the students’ work schedule and were responsible for supervising and training the students. While participating employers were encouraged to communicate with Drexel if there were performance issues so that Drexel could provide support, the participating employer had the authority to terminate the students’ employment. During the time that the students worked at their co-op location, they would have little to no contact with Drexel, which, in the case of the students at issue here, was located approximately 130 miles from where the students were living and working for [the co-op employer]. Sager v Frontpage Invs., 2026 NY Slip Op 02686, Second Dept 4-29-26

Practice Point: Consult this decision for insight into the level of supervision required for an employer-employee or principal-agent relationship which will trigger vicarious liability.

 

, ,

AN ATTORNEY IS NOT AUTOMATICALLY AN AGENT FOR THE ACCEPTANCE OF PROCESS; HERE DEFENDANTS’ FORMER ATTORNEY WAS NOT AUTHORIZED TO ACCEPT SERVICE ON DEFENDANTS’ BEHALF; PERSONAL JURISDICTION WAS NOT OBTAINED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that defendants’ former attorney did not have authority to accept service on defendants’ behalf. Personal jurisdiction over defendants was therefore never attained:

​”Service of process must be made in strict compliance with statutory methods for effecting personal service upon a natural person pursuant to CPLR 308″ … . CPLR 308(3) permits service upon an individual to be made “by delivering the summons within the state to the agent for service of the person to be served designated under rule 318” … . “An attorney is not automatically considered the agent of his client for the purposes of the service of process” … . “[A]n attorney who agrees to accept service on behalf of individual defendants does not automatically become an agent for the acceptance of process, in the absence of proof that his clients actually knew of that representation” … . Here, the plaintiff served the summons and complaint upon the defendant’s former attorney, who lacked authority to accept service on behalf of the defendant. Thus, personal jurisdiction over the defendant was never obtained. Nationstar Mtge., LLC v Klamm, 2026 NY Slip Op 02661, Second Dept 4-29-26

Practice Point: An attorney is not automatically an agent of his client for service of process. Here defendants’ former counsel was not authorized to accept service on their behalf.

 

, ,

THE FACT THAT THE EMPLOYER MAY BE VICARIOUSLY LIABLE FOR AN EMPLOYEE’S NEGLIGENCE DOES NOT WARRANT DISMISSAL OF THE ACTION AGAINST THE EMPLOYEE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined an employee defendant should not have been granted summary judgment on the ground her employer (New Beginnings) was vicariously liable for the employee’s negligence. Allegedly, plaintiff was injured receiving a “facial treatment” from the employee (Wallace):

… [T]he doctrine of respondeat superior does not entitle Wallace to summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against her. “While an employer may be vicariously liable for the torts of its employee while acting within the scope of his or her employment, a claim against the employer does not necessarily preclude a separate claim against the employee” … . “It is ordinarily immaterial to an agent’s liability that the agent’s tortious conduct may, additionally, subject the principal to liability” (Restatement [Third] of Agency § 7.01[b]). “It is consistent with encouraging responsible conduct by individuals to impose individual liability on an agent for the agent’s torts although the agent’s conduct may also subject the principal to liability” … . Castellazzo v David’s New Beginnings, LLC, 2026 NY Slip Op 02625, Second Dept 4-29-26

Practice Point: The fact that an employer may be vicariously liable for an employee’s negligence does not preclude a suit against both.

 

,

PETITIONER’S SISTER ACTED AS AGENT FOR THEIR DECEASED MOTHER; PETITIONER’S STANDING TO SEEK AN ACCOUNTING PURSUANT TO THE GENERAL OBLIGATIONS LAW WAS NOT AFFECTED BY THE PRINCIPAL’S DEATH (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Surrogate’s Court, determined that petitioner had standing to seek an order pursuant to General Obligations Law 5-1510 directing the respondent, petitioner’s sister, to provide a copy of all bank statements, receipts, disbursements and transactions entered into by the respondent while acting as agent for the parties’ deceased mother. Contrary to the Surrogate’s ruling, the death of the parties’ mother did not deprive petitioner of standing to seek an accounting:

… [T]he death of decedent did not divest petitioner of standing pursuant to General Obligations Law § 5-1510 (3) to commence this special proceeding. Section 5-1510 (3) identifies, both directly and by reference to section 5-1505 (2) (a) (3), the parties that have standing to seek judicial intervention for the purpose of, among other things, compelling an accounting of all receipts, disbursements and transactions entered into by an agent on behalf of the principal … . Specifically, it provides that “[a] special proceeding may be commenced pursuant to [section 5-1510 (2)] by any person identified in [section 5-1505 (2) (a) (3)]”—which includes a personal representative of the estate of a deceased principal—as well as “the agent, the spouse, child or parent of the principal, the principal’s successor in interest, or any third party who may be required to accept a power of attorney” … . The legislature’s use of “any” and the disjunctive “or” in that statutory language evinces its intent to provide a list of equal but alternative petitioners … . Lange v Dixson, 2025 NY Slip Op 05352, Fourth Dept 10-3-25

Practice Point: Here petitioner’s sister acted as agent for their deceased mother. The death of the principal (the parties’ mother) did not affect petitioner’s standing to seek an accounting pursuant to the General Obligations Law.

 

, , , ,

ALTHOUGH THE LEASE WAS ENTERED INTO BY THE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY (LLC) THE OWNERS OF THE LLC SIGNED A PARAGRAPH AGREEING TO GUARANTEE THE PAYMENT OF THE RENT; THE BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION AGAINST THE INDIVIDUAL OWNERS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that, although the lease was entered into by the limited liability company (LLC), the owners of the LLC signed as personal guarantors of the rent payments. Therefore the breach of contract action against the individual owners should not have been dismissed:

“An agent executing a contract on behalf of a disclosed principal ‘is not liable for a breach of the contract unless it clearly appears that he or she intended to bind himself or herself personally'” … . “[T]here [must be] clear and explicit evidence of the agent’s intention to substitute or superadd his [or her] personal liability for, or to, that of his [or her] principal” … . “There is great danger in allowing a single sentence in a long contract to bind individually a person who signs only as a corporate officer” … . A personal guaranty of a corporation’s obligation will be enforced against an individual where it “‘constitute[s] a deliberately stated, unambiguous, and separate expression personally obligating'” the individual under the contract … . * * *

Directly above the … signature lines was a paragraph stating that the parties agreed “[t]hat Roman and Solomon Davydov, are the owners of Tavak LLC, and they will act as personal guarantors for the payment of rent and any other[ ] costs, bills and fees and issues arising from the above enumerated items.” …

The clearly worded language of the guaranty clause made reference to Tavak and to each of the individual defendants by name, was contained in a short, two-page rider, and appeared directly above the rider’s signature lines, which the individual defendants signed without listing their corporate titles. 166-20 Union Turnpike, LLC v Tavak, LLC, 2025 NY Slip Op 05054, Second Dept 9-24-25

Practice Point: The owners of a limited liability company which enters a lease can agree to be personally liable for the debts of the LLC by guaranteeing the payment of rent.​

 

, ,

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.

 

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