You are here: / Employment Law
, , ,

PLAINTIFF ALLEGED HE WAS SEXUALLY ABUSED BY AN EMPLOYEE OF THE COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT IN A GUARDED DEPARTMENT PARKING LOT AND IN A LOCKED BATHROOM IN THE JAIL; BECAUSE THE COUNTY WAS ENGAGED IN A GOVERNMENTAL, NOT A PROPRIETARY, FUNCTION (PROVIDING SECURITY FOR THE PARKING LOT AND JAIL), PLAINTIFF MUST DEMONSTRATE THE COUNTY OWED HIM A SPECIAL DUTY, WHICH HE WAS UNABLE TO DO (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the negligence action against the county in this Child Victims Act case should have been dismissed. Plaintiff alleged defendant Weis, a corrections officer employed by defendant Suffolk County Sheriff’s Department, sexually abused him in a guarded parking lot at the Sheriff’s Department and in a locked bathroom in the jail. The Second Department held that the alleged negligence related to a governmental function, not a proprietary function of the Sheriff’s Department, requiring plaintiff to demonstrate he was owed a “special duty:”

… [T]he specific acts or omissions that allegedly caused the plaintiff’s injuries were the defendant’s decisions regarding the level of security and surveillance to provide in a fenced-in jail parking lot, with admission controlled by a posted guard, or within the facility itself. Those decisions go beyond the scope of the defendant’s duty as a landlord and constitute actions undertaken in the defendant’s police protection capacity … . Accordingly, the specific acts or omissions at issue here involved a governmental function.

… [B]ecause the defendant was engaged in a governmental function, the plaintiff was required to demonstrate that the municipality owed him a “special duty” … . A special duty can arise, as relevant here, where “the plaintiff belonged to a class for whose benefit a statute was enacted” or “the government entity voluntarily assumed a duty to the plaintiff beyond what was owed to the public generally” … . Here, the defendant demonstrated, prima facie, that it did not owe a special duty to the plaintiff, and the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact in opposition … . Neary v Suffolk County Sheriff’s Dept., 2025 NY Slip Op 00105, Second Dept 1-8-25

Practice Point: It is not easy to determine whether a governmental entity is engaged in a governmental function or a proprietary function at the time of an alleged negligent act or omission. Here plaintiff alleged abuse by a Sheriff’s Department employee in the guarded department parking lot and in a locked bathroom in the jail. The Second Department deemed the security of the parking lot and the jail a governmental function (acting as a landlord) and held the county could not be liable unless it owed plaintiff a ‘special duty.” Plaintiff was unable to demonstrate a “special duty.”

 

, , ,

DEFENDANT SCHOOL DISTRICT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT DID NOT HAVE CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE TEACHER’S PROPENSITY FOR SEXUAL ABUSE OR THE REPEATED, LONG-TERM ABUSE OF PLAINTIFF STUDENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court in this negligent hiring and negligent supervision case, over a two-justice dissent, determined the defendant school district did not demonstrate it did not have constructive notice of the sexual abuse of plaintiff by a teacher (Faralan) which occurred repeatedly over an extended period during school hours:

… [T]he district failed to meet its prima facie burden of demonstrating that it was not negligent with respect to the hiring, retention, and supervision of Faralan or that it was not negligent with respect to its supervision of the plaintiff. The district submitted no evidence regarding its hiring, retention, or supervision of Faralan, who was a probationary employee during the time when he sexually abused the plaintiff on school grounds, including times when he was tutoring her one-on-one … . Furthermore, the district failed to establish, prima facie, that it lacked constructive notice of Faralan’s abusive propensities and conduct, particularly given the frequency of the abuse, which occurred several times per week over an extended period of time in the same classroom and hallway during tutoring sessions and at times when others were present … . Stanton v Longwood Cent. Sch. Dist., 2024 NY Slip Op 06600, Second Dept 12-24-24

Practice Point: To warrant summary judgment in a negligent hiring and supervision suit alleging abuse of a student by a teacher, the school district must affirmatively demonstrate it did not have constructive notice of the teacher’s propensity for abuse and/or the abuse itself. Plaintiff’s allegations of repeated abuse during school hours over an extended period of time raised a question of fact re: the district’s constructive notice.

, , , ,

AN ELECTRICAL SUBCONTRACTOR WHICH IS NOT LICENSED IN NEW YORK CITY CANNOT SUE FOR PAYMENT FOR WORK DONE IN THE CITY AND CANNOT FORECLOSE ON RELATED MECHANIC’S LIENS (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff electrical subcontractor, Mikoma Tech, did not prove it was licensed to perform electrical work in New York City. Therefore plaintiff could not sue for breach of contract or under a quantum meruit theory and could not foreclose on mechanic’s liens:

… [T]he complaint … failed to allege that Mikoma Tech was licensed to perform electrical work in New York City. As Mikoma Tech was not licensed to perform electrical work in the City, it may not recover against the defendants under a breach of contract or quantum meruit theory and has forfeited the right to foreclose on mechanic’s liens … . Mikoma Elec., LLC v Otek Bldrs., LLC, 2024 NY Slip Op 06332, Second Dept 12-18-24

Practice Point: The rule requiring a license to perform electrical work in New York City is strictly construed. The unlicensed contractor cannot sue for payment and cannot foreclose mechanic’s liens.

 

, , , ,

THE 18 USC 1983 CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST THE POLICE AND MUNICIPALITY WAS PROPERLY DISMISSED BECAUSE THE DOCTRINE OF REPONDEAT SUPERIOR DOES NOT APPLY AND THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE THE POLICE WERE ACTING PURSUANT TO A MUNICIPAL CUSTOM OR POLICY WHEN THEY ALLEGEDLY PUSHED PLAINTIFF TO THE GROUND, HANDCUFFED HER AND TASED HER; HOWEVER THE BATTERY CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the battery cause of action in this Civil Rights Law (18 USC 1983) case should not have been dismissed. The lawsuit stemmed from the police allegedly pushing plaintiff to the ground, striking her, handcuffing her and tasing her. The 18 USC 1983 cause of action was properly dismissed because plaintiff did not prove the police were acting pursuant to a municipal custom or policy. However, the battery cause of action should not have been dismissed:

However … a jury could rationally conclude that the defendants are liable for battery. “‘To recover damages for battery, a plaintiff must prove that there was bodily contact, made with intent, and offensive in nature'” … . “[A]n assault and battery cause of action may be based on contact during an unlawful arrest” … .

At trial, the plaintiff presented evidence from which the jury could rationally conclude that the detention was not privileged under Mental Hygiene Law § 9.41, and the trial evidence showed that the officers engaged in contact with the plaintiff during the allegedly unlawful detention. The trial evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, was sufficient to allow the jury to rationally conclude that the two officers were acting within the scope of their official duties at the relevant time. Accordingly, the defendants were not entitled to dismissal of the cause of action alleging battery … . Mac v County of Suffolk, 2024 NY Slip Op 06330, Second Dept 12-18-24

Practice Point: A municipality cannot be held liable pursuant to 18 USC 1983 for the actions of police officers under a respondeat superior theory. The plaintiff must show the police were acting pursuant to a municipal custom or policy.

Practice Point: A municipality may be liable for battery committed by police officers acting within the scope of their employment.

 

, , ,

THE COMPLAINT, WHICH ALLEGED PLAINTIFF’S FORMER EMPLOYER “BLACKBALLED” HIM BY PREVENTING HIM FROM PROCURING EMPLOYMENT WITH OTHER COMPANIES. STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH PROSPECTIVE CONTRACTUAL RELATIONS (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the complaint stated a cause of action for tortious interference with prospective contractual relations. Plaintiff was allegedly “blackballed” by his former employer, Con Edison, when he sought employment with other companies after he was fired by Con Edison, allegedly for complaining about illegal dumping of waste:

Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, the amended complaint failed to state a cause of action to recover damages for tortious interference with contract insofar as asserted against Con Edison. The amended complaint alleged that the plaintiff entered into certain employment contracts after he was terminated from Restani and that Con Edison interfered with those contracts, causing the plaintiff’s termination. Inasmuch as the plaintiff failed to allege that those employment contracts were for a definite term, we presume that they were terminable at will … . A contract that is terminable at will cannot form the basis of a claim for tortious interference with contract because such a contract “contemplates prospective contractual relations only” … .

… [T]he amended complaint stated a cause of action to recover damages for tortious interference with prospective contractual relations insofar as asserted against Con Edison. “Where, as here, the alleged interference was with prospective contractual relationships, rather than existing contracts, a plaintiff must show that the defendant interfered with the plaintiff’s business relationships either with the sole purpose of harming the plaintiff or by means that were unlawful or improper” … . “‘This standard is met where the interference with prospective business relations was accomplished by wrongful means or where the offending party acted for the sole purpose of harming the other party'” … . Wrongful means may include physical violence, fraud, misrepresentation, civil suits, criminal prosecutions, and economic pressure … . Here, the plaintiff sufficiently alleged that Con Edison tortiously interfered with his prospective contractual relationship with his employers by engaging in unlawful retaliatory conduct in violation of Labor Law § 740 … . Ackerson v Restani Constr. Corp., 2024 NY Slip Op 06322, Second Dept 12-18-24

Practice Point: The court noted that interference with at will contracts cannot be the basis for a tortious interference with contract cause of action. However interference with at will contracts can be the basis for a tortious interference with prospective contractual relations cause of action.

 

, , ,

NYC MUST PAY CITY EMPLOYEES, RETIREES AND DEPENDENTS THE FULL COST, UP TO THE STATUTORY CAP, OF ANY HEALTH INSURANCE PLAN THE CITY OFFERS (CT APP). ​

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Wilson, determined NYC was required to pay city employees, retirees and dependents the full cost, up to the statutory cap, of any health insurance plan the city offers:

At issue on this appeal are the portions of Administrative Code of the City of New York § 12-126 requiring New York City (“City”) to pay, for active employees, retirees and their dependents, “the entire cost of health insurance coverage,” defined as “[a] program of hospital-surgical-medical benefits,” in an amount “not to exceed one hundred percent of the full cost of H.I.P.-H.M.O. on a category basis.” The statute requires that the City’s program includes “hospital[,] surgical [and] medical benefits.” The statute also requires the City to pay the full cost of the program, so long as that cost does not exceed the comparator in the statute. The question in this case is what section 12-126 requires the City to do when it offers more than one health insurance plan to employees and retirees. Petitioners argue that section 12-126 requires the City to pay, up to the statutory cap, for any plan it offers. The City contends that its section 12-126 obligation is satisfied if it pays up to the cap for one health insurance plan providing hospital, surgical and medical benefits. It argues that it may offer additional plans but has no statutory obligation to pay any portion of their cost, and explains that when it has paid for additional plans in the past, it has done so because it agreed to in collective bargaining, not because it was statutorily required to do so. The parties also disagree as to which health insurance plan sets the statutory cap for Medicare-eligible retirees.

We hold that section 12-126 requires the City to pay up to the statutory cap for any plan it offers to employees and retirees. Matter of NYC Org. of Pub. Serv. Retirees, Inc. v Campion, 2024 NY Slip Op 06291, CtApp 12-17-24

 

, ,

SUBSTITUTE TEACHER NOT ENTITLED TO UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BENEFITS FOR THE PERIOD BETWEEN TWO SUCCESSIVE ACADEMIC YEARS DURING THE PANDEMIC BECAUSE HE RECEIVED ASSURANCE OF CONTINUED EMPLOYMENT; TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, over a two-justice dissent, determined claimant, a substitute teacher, was not entitled to unemployment insurance benefits between two successive academic years (during the COVID pandemic) because he had received assurance of continued employment. The dissenters disagreed with the majority’s conclusion claimant had been assured of continued employment:

“[P]ursuant to Labor Law § 590 (10), a professional employed by an educational institution is precluded from receiving unemployment insurance benefits for the period between two successive academic years when he or she has received a reasonable assurance of continued employment” … . “A reasonable assurance has been interpreted as a representation by the employer that substantially the same economic terms and conditions will continue to apply to the extent that the claimant will receive at least 90% of the earnings received during the first academic period” … . “Notably, the question of whether a claimant received a reasonable assurance of reemployment for the following academic year is a question of fact and, if the Board’s findings in that regard are supported by substantial evidence, they will not be disturbed” … . Matter of Jensen (Commissioner of Labor), 2024 NY Slip Op 06253, Third Dept 12-12-24

Practice Point: A substitute teacher is not entitled to unemployment insurance benefits during the period between two successive academic years if he or she has received assurance of continued employment.

 

, ,

PLAINTIFF DID NOT PROVE DEFENDANT OWNER OF DEFENDANT CORPORATION WAS PROPERLY SERVED WITH THE SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT BY SUBSTITUTE SERVICE; EVEN PROPER SUBSTITUTE SERVICE WOULD NOT BE SUFFICIENT TO ACQUIRE PERSONAL JURISDICTION OVER A CORPORATION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the defendant owner of defendant corporation (Tatiana Batin) and the corporation (Godess … Spa …) were not properly served with the summons and complaint in this action alleging an employee of defendant corporation sexually abused plaintiff during a massage:

… [P]laintiff failed to demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that Batin was properly served with the summons and complaint pursuant to CPLR 308(2). The hearing evidence established that the address at which Batin was purportedly served pursuant to CPLR 308(2) was neither her actual dwelling place nor her usual place of abode as of the purported date of service … . Contrary to the Supreme Court’s determination, “‘[e]ven if a defendant eventually acquires actual notice of the lawsuit, actual notice alone will not sustain the service or subject a person to the court’s jurisdiction when there has not been compliance with prescribed conditions of service'” … .

… [P]laintiff failed to demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that Goddess was properly served pursuant to CPLR 311(a)(1), which required delivery of the summons and complaint to “an officer, director, managing or general agent, or . . . any other agent authorized . . . to receive service.” “Personal service on a corporation must be made to one of the persons authorized by the statute to accept service, and an attempt to serve such person by substitute service pursuant to CPLR 308(2) or (4) will be insufficient to acquire jurisdiction over the corporation” … . Here, even assuming, arguendo, that Batin had been properly served pursuant to CPLR 308(2), substituted service upon her pursuant to CPLR 308(2) would be insufficient to acquire personal jurisdiction over Goddess, as CPLR 311(a)(1) requires personal service directly upon a corporate representative … . Flatow v Goddess Sanctuary & Spa Corp., 2024 NY Slip Op 06029, Second Dept 12-4-24

Practice Point: At the hearing plaintiff did not prove defendant owner of defendant corporation was properly served with the summons and complaint by substitute service.

Practice Point: Personal jurisdiction over a corporation cannot be acquired by substitute service.

 

, ,

DEFENDANT’ CLOTHING STORE’S EMPLOYEE ALLEGEDLY ATTEMPTED TO RECORD PLAINTIFF IN A CHANGING ROOM; THE NEGLIGENT HIRING CAUSE OF ACTION, BASED ON THE ALLEGATION THE STORE DID NOT CONDUCT A BACKGROUND CHECK BEFORE HIRING THE EMPLOYEE, SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant clothing store (Gap) was entitled to summary judgment dismissing the negligent-hiring-supervision complaint. Plaintiff alleged a store employee, Medel, attempted to record her on a cell phone as she was changing in a fitting room. The negligent hiring cause of action alleged Gap did not do a background check before hiring Medel, which was alleged to have been in violation of store policy:

The Supreme Court erred in denying those branches of the store defendants’ motion which were for summary judgment dismissing the causes of action alleging negligent hiring, training, supervision, and retention insofar as asserted against them. “‘[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'” … . Here, the submissions of the store defendants in support of their motion demonstrated, prima facie, that they did not have notice of any propensity of Medel to commit misconduct … .

In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether Gap or Old Navy knew or should have known that Medel had a propensity to commit misconduct … . The plaintiff’s contention, via the affidavit of her expert, that neither Gap nor Old Navy appeared to have conducted a background check prior to hiring Medel, as was their apparent internal policy before hiring any employees, is without merit. “There is no common-law duty to institute specific procedures for hiring employees unless the employer knows of facts that would lead a reasonably prudent person to investigate the prospective employee” … . Moreover, the plaintiff failed to submit any evidence that a background check of Medel would have revealed a propensity to commit misconduct … . Hashimi v Gap, Inc., 2024 NY Slip Op 05961, Second Dept 11-27-24

Practice Point: A negligent hiring cause of action based on the allegation the employer did not conduct a background check, without more, will not survive a motion to dismiss. Plaintiff must demonstrate the employer knew of facts which should have triggered a background check.

 

, , , , ,

THE “MINISTERIAL EXCEPTION” IS GROUNDED IN THE FIRST AMEMDMENT AND MAY RESTRICT A STATE AGENCY’S REVIEW OF EMPLOYMENT DECISIONS MADE BY RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS; THE EXCEPTION IS AN AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, NOT A JURISDICTIONAL BAR, TO A HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT ACTION UNDER THE NYS HUMAN RIGHTS LAW (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Halligan, reversing the New York State Division of Human Rights (DHR) and the Appellate Division, determined the so-called “ministerial exception” was not a jurisdictional bar to the Nigerian priest’s, Ibhawa’s, hostile work environment claim under the NYS Human Rights Law. The “ministerial exception” is grounded in the First Amendment and may restrict state interference with employment decisions made by religious institutions.. The Court of Appeals clarified that the ministerial exception is an affirmative defense in an employment discrimination action against a religious institution, not a jurisdictional bar to bringing the case:

Ibhawa filed an employment complaint with the New York State Division of Human Rights (DHR) in November 2020, claiming that the Diocese had engaged in discriminatory employment practices in violation of the New York Human Rights Law (see Executive Law art 15). Ibhawa alleged that he had experienced racial discrimination at the Diocese, including from an employee who directed a racial slur at him and a parishioner who made xenophobic remarks to him. He further alleged that the Diocesan officials to whom he reported the incidents declined to investigate them, questioned his decision to terminate the employee who had used a racial slur, and made “highly insulting and offensive” remarks about “foreign priests.” At a subsequent meeting, two Diocesan officials offered to buy Ibhawa a plane ticket to Nigeria and told him that the “Bishop could remove [his] faculties.” Shortly afterwards, the Diocese informed Ibhawa that his employment had been terminated and his priestly faculties removed, which meant that that he could not apply for a position as a priest in the Diocese. The Diocese eventually hired a white priest to replace him. Based on these assertions, Ibhawa alleged claims of hostile work environment and unlawful termination on the basis of race and national origin. He sought, among other remedies, compensatory and punitive damages. * * *

DHR’s order dismissing Ibhawa’s hostile work environment claim was affected by an error of law. After noting the parties’ agreement that Ibhawa was “a priest serving as the pastor (Parish Administrator) of a church,” DHR found that his complaint “comes under the ministerial exception (relative to the first amendment of the U.S. Constitution).” On that basis, DHR concluded that it lacked jurisdiction over Ibhawa’s claims. This determination was contrary to the U.S. Supreme Court’s express holding that the “exception operates as an affirmative defense to an otherwise cognizable claim, not a jurisdictional bar” … . Matter of Ibhawa v New York State Div. of Human Rights, 2024 NY Slip Op 05872, CtApp 11-26-24

Practice Point: The “ministerial exception” is grounded in the First Amendment and may restrict a state agency’s review of employment decisions made by religious institutions. The exception is an affirmative defense, not a jurisdictional bar, to a hostile work environment action brought by a priest against his employer.

 

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