You are here: / Agency
,

RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR DOCTRINE MAY BE APPLIED BASED UPON A PRINCIPAL-AGENT RELATIONSHIP INVOLVING VOLUNTEERS, HERE PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED BY A LADDER WHEN VOLUNTEERS WERE PAINTING THE BUILDING OWNED BY THE DEFENDANT, POINTING TO GAPS IN THE OPPOSING PARTY’S PROOF WILL NOT SUPPORT SUMMARY JUDGMENT (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that the fact that the people engaged by defendant to paint the property were volunteers did not preclude the application of the doctrine of respondeat superior based upon a principal-agent relationship. Plaintiff was injured by a ladder when she left the building. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment should not have been granted. The court noted that pointing to gaps in the opposing party’s proof will not support summary judgment:

“Under the doctrine of respondeat superior, a principal is liable for the negligent acts committed by its agent within the scope of the agency”… , and “[a] principal-agent relationship can include a volunteer when the requisite conditions, including control and acting on another’s behalf, are shown” … . Here, defendants each failed to establish as a matter of law that the volunteers at the residence where plaintiff was injured may not be considered their servants for purposes of respondeat superior liability … , or that the duty to ensure that the work was performed safely may not fairly be imposed upon them … .

In addition, defendants cannot meet their burden on their respective summary judgment motions and cross motion based upon plaintiff’s failure to identify the volunteer(s) who caused the ladder to strike her … . “[I]n seeking summary judgment, [a] moving party must affirmatively [demonstrate] the merits of its cause of action or defense and does not meet its burden by noting gaps in its opponent’s proof’ “… . Defendants’ failure to meet their burden requires denial of the motions and cross motion, “regardless of the sufficiency of the opposing papers” … . Rozmus v Wesleyan Church of Hamburg, 2018 NY Slip Op 03261, Fourth Dept 5-4-18

​NEGLIGENCE (VICARIOUS LIABILITY, RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR DOCTRINE MAY BE APPLIED BASED UPON A PRINCIPAL-AGENT RELATIONSHIP INVOLVING VOLUNTEERS, HERE PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED BY A LADDER WHEN VOLUNTEERS WERE PAINTING THE BUILDING OWNED BY THE DEFENDANT (FOURTH DEPT))/RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR (NEGLIGENCE, VOLUNTEERS, RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR DOCTRINE MAY BE APPLIED BASED UPON A PRINCIPAL-AGENT RELATIONSHIP INVOLVING VOLUNTEERS, HERE PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED BY A LADDER WHEN VOLUNTEERS WERE PAINTING THE BUILDING OWNED BY THE DEFENDANT (FOURTH DEPT))/VICARIOUS LIABILITY (RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR DOCTRINE MAY BE APPLIED BASED UPON A PRINCIPAL-AGENT RELATIONSHIP INVOLVING VOLUNTEERS, HERE PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED BY A LADDER WHEN VOLUNTEERS WERE PAINTING THE BUILDING OWNED BY THE DEFENDANT (FOURTH DEPT))/AGENCY (NEGLIGENCE, RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR, VOLUNTEERS, RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR DOCTRINE MAY BE APPLIED BASED UPON A PRINCIPAL-AGENT RELATIONSHIP INVOLVING VOLUNTEERS, HERE PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED BY A LADDER WHEN VOLUNTEERS WERE PAINTING THE BUILDING OWNED BY THE DEFENDANT (FOURTH DEPT))/SUMMARY JUDGMENT (POINTING TO GAPS IN THE OPPOSING PARTY’S PROOF WILL NOT SUPPORT SUMMARY JUDGMENT (FOURTH DEPT))

, , ,

UNDISCLOSED PRINCIPAL CAN SUE ON A LEASE ENTERED INTO BY ITS AGENT.

The Second Department determined the owner of a parking lot (Berkshire) could assert cross claims against the lessee of the parking lot (Livingston), even though the lessee did not know the lease was entered into by an undisclosed agent of the owner. Plaintiff was injured in a slip and fall on the sidewalk adjacent to the parking lot. The owner cross-claimed for indemnification by the lessee:

Berkshire may enforce provisions of Livingston’s lease for the parking lot. An undisclosed principal may sue on a contract made in the name of its agent unless there is a showing of fraud … . Here, Livingston’s submissions confirmed that Berkshire owned the property that Livingston was renting, and that the lease was valid. Livingston does not assert that it would not have entered into the lease had it known then that Berkshire was, in fact, the owner. Although Livingston was not aware that Berkshire had authorized an agent to enter into the lease on its behalf, Livingston cannot escape liability on the contract by claiming ignorance of the undisclosed principal’s existence … . Simmons v Berkshire Equity, LLC, 2017 NY Slip Op 03208, 2nd Dept 4-26-17

CONTRACT LAW (UNDISCLOSED PRINCIPAL CAN SUE ON A LEASE ENTERED INTO BY ITS AGENT)/AGENCY (UNDISCLOSED PRINCIPAL CAN SUE ON A LEASE ENTERED INTO BY ITS AGENT)/LANDLORD-TENANT (UNDISCLOSED PRINCIPAL CAN SUE ON A LEASE ENTERED INTO BY ITS AGENT)/NEGLIGENCE (SLIP AND FALL, UNDISCLOSED PRINCIPAL CAN COUNTERCLAIM AGAINST LESSEE BASED ON A LEASE ENTERED INTO BY ITS AGENT)/AGENCY (UNDISCLOSED PRINCIPAL CAN SUE ON A LEASE ENTERED INTO BY ITS AGENT)

, ,

EVIDENCE DEFENDANT HOTEL HELD ITSELF OUT AS THE PROPERTY OWNER ON ITS WEBSITE RAISED THE POSSIBILITY OF LIABILITY IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE AS THE APPARENT AGENT OF THE OWNER, SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY DENIED AS PREMATURE.

The First Department determined plaintiffs raised sufficient questions about whether defendant Starwood was an apparent or ostensible agent of the property owner, Sheraton, to justify further discovery and denial of defendant’s summary judgment motion as premature. Plaintiff was injured in a slip and fall on a hotel walkway alleged to be defective. Plaintiff sued Starwood. Starwood moved for summary judgment arguing the hotel was owned by Sheraton and the walkway maintenance was under the exclusive control of an independent contractor, ZLC. Plaintiffs demonstrated there was evidence Starwood held itself out as the owner of the property on its website:

​

Starwood demonstrated that it did not own or control the hotel, and that, under the terms of the license agreement with Sheraton, ZLC was an independent contractor and was responsible for the day-to-day operations of the hotel. Under these circumstances, even if Starwood were a party to the license (or franchise) agreement, the mere existence of a franchise relationship would not provide a basis for the imposition of vicarious liability against Starwood for the negligence of the franchisee, ZLC … .

However, in opposition, plaintiff submitted evidence that Starwood’s reservations website holds the hotel out to the public as a Starwood property, and that plaintiff relied on the representations on Starwood’s website in choosing to book a room at the hotel. This evidence of public representations and reliance may support a finding of apparent or ostensible agency, which may serve as a basis for imposing vicarious liability against Starwood … . Although the license agreement required ZLC to disclose that it was an “independent legal entity operating under license” from Sheraton and to place “notices of independent ownership” on the premises, Starwood did not provide any evidence that ZLC complied with those requirements.  Stern v Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide, Inc., 2017 NY Slip Op 02882, 1st Dept 4-13-17

 

CIVIL PROCEDURE (EVIDENCE DEFENDANT HOTEL HELD ITSELF OUT AS THE PROPERTY OWNER ON ITS WEBSITE RAISED THE POSSIBILITY OF LIABILITY IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE AS THE APPARENT AGENT OF THE OWNER, SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY DENIED AS PREMATURE)/AGENCY  (EVIDENCE DEFENDANT HOTEL HELD ITSELF OUT AS THE PROPERTY OWNER ON ITS WEBSITE RAISED THE POSSIBILITY OF LIABILITY IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE AS THE APPARENT AGENT OF THE OWNER, SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY DENIED AS PREMATURE)/NEGLIGENCE  (EVIDENCE DEFENDANT HOTEL HELD ITSELF OUT AS THE PROPERTY OWNER ON ITS WEBSITE RAISED THE POSSIBILITY OF LIABILITY IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE AS THE APPARENT AGENT OF THE OWNER, SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY DENIED AS PREMATURE)

,

PLAINTIFFS’ CONCLUSORY ALLEGATIONS OF AN AGENCY RELATIONSHIP INSUFFICIENT TO DEMONSTRATE A BASIS FOR LONG-ARM JURISDICTION, MOTION TO DISMISS PROPERLY GRANTED.

The First Department, over a dissent, determined plaintiffs did not demonstrate defendants were subject to long-arm jurisdiction in New York. The dissent argued jurisdiction was obtained through the activities of defendants’ New York agents. The majority held that the conclusory allegations concerning the purported agency relationship were insufficient to survive the motion to dismiss:

​

To establish that a defendant acted through an agent, a plaintiff must “convince the court that [the New York actors] engaged in purposeful activities in this State in relation to [the] transaction for the benefit of and with the knowledge and consent of [the defendant] and that [the defendant] exercised some control over [the New York actors]” … . “[T]]o make a prima facie showing of control, a plaintiff’s allegations must sufficiently detail the defendant’s conduct so as to persuade a court that the defendant was a primary actor’ in the specific matter in question; control cannot be shown based merely upon a defendant’s title or position within the corporation, or upon conclusory allegations that the defendant controls the corporation” … . Coast to Coast Energy, Inc. v Gasarch, 2017 NY Slip Op 02876, 1st Dept 4-13-17

CIVIL PROCEDURE (PLAINTIFFS’ CONCLUSORY ALLEGATIONS OF AN AGENCY RELATIONSHIP INSUFFICIENT TO DEMONSTRATE A BASIS FOR LONG-ARM JURISDICTION, MOTION TO DISMISS PROPERLY GRANTED)/LONG ARM JURISDICTION (PLAINTIFFS’ CONCLUSORY ALLEGATIONS OF AN AGENCY RELATIONSHIP INSUFFICIENT TO DEMONSTRATE A BASIS FOR LONG-ARM JURISDICTION, MOTION TO DISMISS PROPERLY GRANTED)/AGENCY (LONG ARM JURISDICTION, PLAINTIFFS’ CONCLUSORY ALLEGATIONS OF AN AGENCY RELATIONSHIP INSUFFICIENT TO DEMONSTRATE A BASIS FOR LONG-ARM JURISDICTION, MOTION TO DISMISS PROPERLY GRANTED)/AGENCY (PLAINTIFFS’ CONCLUSORY ALLEGATIONS OF AN AGENCY RELATIONSHIP INSUFFICIENT TO DEMONSTRATE A BASIS FOR LONG-ARM JURISDICTION, MOTION TO DISMISS PROPERLY GRANTED)

,

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER HOTEL DEFENDANTS WERE VICARIOUSLY LIABLE FOR THE NEGLIGENCE OF A SNOWMOBILE TOUR GUIDE UNDER AN APPARENT AGENCY THEORY.

The Third Department affirmed the denial of the hotel defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff was severely injured and her husband was killed when the snowmobile they were using was struck by a car. The hotel promoted snowmobile tours. All the arrangements for the tour were made by the plaintiffs and hotel personnel. The actual tour was conducted by Adirondack Snowmobile Rental (ASR). The tour guide, driving the lead snowmobile, crossed a road without waiting for plaintiff and plaintiff’s decedent, who were following. Plaintiff and plaintiff’s decedent were struck by a car when they attempted to cross the road. The Third Department determined plaintiff had stated a cause of action in negligence against the hotel defendants, alleging the hotel defendants were vicariously liable for the negligence of ASR under an apparent agency theory:

 

… “[I]t is fundamental to the principal/agent relationship that [a principal] is liable to a third person for the wrongful or negligent acts . . . of its agent when made within the general or apparent scope of the agent’s authority” … . To establish a negligence claim based upon an apparent agency theory, a plaintiff must show evidence of “words or conduct of the principal . . . communicated to a third party, which give rise to a reasonable belief and appearance that the agent possesses authority to [act on the principal’s behalf]” … .

Here, the evidence includes a screenshot of the resort’s website that can be read to suggest that snowmobiling is a service provided by defendants’ agents or employees, as it is listed among the winter activities available on the premises. … [P]laintiff stated that she and decedent only dealt with the resort staff in organizing the tour and had never heard of ASR prior to the tour’s commencement. Viewing this evidence in a light most favorable to plaintiff as the nonmoving party, we find that Supreme Court properly denied the portion of defendants’ motion seeking dismissal of plaintiff’s negligence claim based upon the doctrine of apparent agency. In our view, defendants’ promotional materials, together with the testimony regarding the overall experience that defendants and their staff strive to provide for guests of the resort, create a question of fact as to whether plaintiff could have reasonably believed that ASR possessed the authority to conduct the snowmobile tour as defendants’ agent … . Taylor v The Point at Saranac Lake, Inc., 2016 NY Slip Op 00247, 3rd Dept 1-14-16

 

NEGLGENCE (TORT LIABILITY ARISING FROM CONTRACT, AND INTERVENING, SUPERSEDING CAUSE OF INJURY EXPLAINED)/CONTRACT LAW (TORT LIABILITY TO THIRD PERSONS EXPLAINED)/INTERVENING, SUPERSEDING CAUSE OF INJURY (CRITERIA EXPLAINED)/SUPERSEDING CAUSE OF INJURY (CRITERIA EXPLAINED)

, , ,

Defendant’s Employee Had “Apparent Authority” to Act on Behalf of Defendant Insurance Agency—Plaintiff Justifiably Relied on the Apparent Authority When It Purchased a Fake Policy from Defendant’s Employee–Plaintiff Entitled to Partial Summary Judgment on the Fraud Cause of Action

The Fourth Department, over a two-justice dissent, determined plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment on its fraud cause of action against defendant insurance agency.  An employee of the insurance agency issued a fake workers’ compensation policy to the plaintiff. The Fourth Department found that the actions of the insurance agency provided the employee with “apparent authority” to issue the policy and the plaintiff justifiably relied on that apparent authority.  The relevant law was succinctly explained:

“In an action to recover damages for fraud, the plaintiff must prove a misrepresentation or a material omission of fact which was false and known to be false by [the maker], made for the purpose of inducing the other party to rely upon it, justifiable reliance of the other party on the misrepresentation or material omission, and injury” … . It is undisputed that the insurance policy purportedly issued by AIG was false, and thus plaintiff established that a false representation was made that was known to be false by defendant’s employee. Defendant contends, however, that the justifiable reliance element was not met because it cannot be liable for the acts of its employee, and plaintiff’s reliance on the alleged “apparent authority” of defendant’s employee was not reasonable.

It is axiomatic that “[t]he mere creation of an agency for some purpose does not automatically invest the agent with apparent authority’ to bind the principle without limitation . . . An agent’s power to bind his [or her] principal is coextensive with the principal’s grant of authority” … . “Essential to the creation of apparent authority are words or conduct of the principal, communicated to the third party, that give rise to the appearance and belief that the agent possesses authority to enter into a transaction. The agent cannot by his [or her] own acts imbue himself [or herself] 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’ . . . Morever, a third party with whom the agent deals may rely on an appearance of authority only to the extent that such reliance is reasonable” … . Here, plaintiff contacted defendant seeking workers’ compensation coverage, and defendant assigned its employee who specialized in plaintiff’s type of business to assist plaintiff. We therefore conclude that plaintiff established that it reasonably relied upon the authority of defendant’s employee to act for defendant. Regency Oaks Corp. v Norman-Spencer McKernan, Inc., 2015 NY Slip Op 04959, 4th Dept 6-12-15

 

, ,

Adverse Interest Exception to In Pari Delicto Defense May Apply—The Two Concepts Are Briefly Explained

In an accounting malpractice action, the Second Department determined the defendants’ motion to dismiss based upon the defense of in pari delicto defense was properly denied because the adverse interest exception may apply.  The court explained the two concepts:

The defendants contend that [the accounting malpractice] cause of action is barred by the doctrine of in pari delicto, “which mandates that the courts will not intercede to resolve a dispute between two wrongdoers” … . However, the adverse interest exception to the doctrine of in pari delicto provides that “when an agent is engaged in a scheme to defraud his principal, either for his own benefit or that of a third person, the presumption that knowledge held by the agent was disclosed to the principal fails because he cannot be presumed to have disclosed that which would expose and defeat his fraudulent purpose” … . Here, the documentary evidence submitted by the defendants did not conclusively foreclose the application of the adverse interest exception to the in pari delicto defense … . Schwartz v Leaf Salzman Mangenelli Pfiel, & Tendler LLP, 2014 NY Slip Op 08823, 2nd Dept 12-17-14

 

, ,

Evidence Did Not “Utterly Refute” Plaintiff’s Allegation He Had No Notice Individual Defendant Was Acting as an Agent for a Disclosed Corporate Principal—Motion to Dismiss Action Against Individual Defendant Pursuant to CPLR 3211 Should Not Have Been Granted

The Third Department determined Supreme Court should not have granted individual defendant’s (Valentino’s) motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211 because the evidence did not “utterly refute” plaintiff’s claim he had no notice Valentino was acting as an agent of a disclosed corporate principal when a building contract was executed:

“It is well settled that an individual who signs a contract as an agent for an entity will be held personally liable on the contract if the agency relationship is not disclosed” … . Whether or not a principal is disclosed depends upon whether, at the time of the underlying transaction, the other party to the contract had notice that the agent was acting for a principal and knew of the principal’s identity … .

Here, the contract identified J & J Enterprises as the builder, but there is no reference in the contract or in the accompanying specifications sheet to the status of J & J Enterprises as the trade name of a corporation or to Valentino’s status as an officer or representative of any such corporation.  Winer v Valentino, 2014 NY Slip Op 07050, 3rd Dept 10-16-14

 

, ,

Criteria for “Apparent Authority” to Enter a Binding Contract, Including the “Apparent Authority” of a Member of a Limited Liability Corporation, Explained

In determining the criteria for apparent authority, including apparent authority under the Limited Liability Corporation Law, had been met, the Fourth Department held that member of the defendant limited liability corporation (Sultan) entered into a binding contract on behalf of the defendant corporation:

“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 his own acts imbue 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” … . Here, we conclude that plaintiffs reasonably relied on, inter alia, their prior course of dealing with Sultan in his capacity as president, principal and manager of defendant … . * * *

…[W]e note that Limited Liability Company Law § 412 (a) provides that, “[u]nless the articles of organization of a limited liability company provide that management shall be vested in a manager or managers, every member is an agent of the limited liability company for the purpose of its business, and the act of every member, including the execution in the name of the limited liability company of any instrument, for apparently carrying on in the usual way the business of the limited liability company, binds the limited liability company, unless (i) the member so acting has in fact no authority to act for the limited liability company in the particular matter and (ii) the person with whom he or she is dealing has knowledge of the fact that the member has no such authority.” A nearly identical subsection provides that, where management of an LLC is vested in a manager, the acts of the manager are binding upon the LLC unless the manager at issue has in fact no authority to act for the LLC, and the person with whom he or she is dealing knows that the manager lacks such authority (§ 412 [b] [2] [A], [B]). Thus, regardless whether Sultan was acting as a manager of defendant, as reflected by his signature on the contract, or as a member of defendant, as he and defendant’s attorney previously had indicated to plaintiffs, he had apparent authority to act and his acts were binding upon defendant unless, inter alia, plaintiffs had “knowledge of the fact that [Sultan] ha[d] no such authority” … . Pasquarella v 1525 William St LLC, 2014 NY Slip Op 05745, 4th Dept 8-8-14

 

,

In the Absence of an Express Agreement that the Plaintiff Was Entitled to a Commission Upon the Sale of Assets by the Principal, the Agreement Created an Exclusive Agency, which Merely Precluded the Principal from Hiring Another Agent, but Did Not Create, in the Agent, an Exclusive Right to Sell

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Lippman, over a dissent, in another case arising from the “toxic debts” crisis, determined that the plaintiff was an exclusive agent for the sale of assets, and was not granted an exclusive right to sell the assets. If plaintiff had been granted an exclusive right to sell, it may have been entitled to a commission when the assets were sold by the principal.  But, since the contract was silent about the plaintiff's right to a commission when the principal sells the assets, plaintiff was granted only an exclusive agency for the sale of the assets and the principal could sell the assets without any obligation to pay a commission to the plaintiff.  The exclusive agency agreement only precluded the principal from hiring another agent:

The distinction between an exclusive agency and an exclusive right to sell is well established in a body of Appellate Division case law … . As stated nearly a century ago, “The general rule is that where an exclusive right of sale is given a broker, the principal cannot make a sale [herself] without becoming liable for the commissions. But where the contract is merely to make the broker the sole agent, the principal may make a sale [herself] without the broker's aid, if such sale is made in good faith and to some purchaser not procured by the broker”… .

Put differently, “[a] broker is entitled to a commission upon the sale of the property by the owner only where the broker has been given the exclusive right to sell; an exclusive agency merely precludes the owner from retaining another broker in the making of the sale” … . We have endorsed this dichotomy implicitly in the past …, and now do so explicitly.

Furthermore, we agree with the case law of the lower courts holding that a contract giving rise to an exclusive right of sale must “clearly and expressly provide[] that a commission is due upon sale by the owner or exclude[] the owner from independently negotiating a sale” … . Requiring an affirmative and unequivocal statement to establish a broker's exclusive right to sell is consistent with the general principle that an owner's freedom to dispose of her own property should not be infringed upon by mere implication. Morpheus Capital Advisors LLC v UBS AG, 2014 NY Slip Op 04112, CtApp 6-10-14

 

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