,

PLAINTIFF ALLEGED SHE WAS SUBJECTED TO SEXUAL MISCONDUCT BY BILL COSBY, THE STAR OF THE TELEVISION SERIES “THE COSBY SHOW,” WHILE COSBY WAS EMPLOYED BY DEFENDANT CW, THE OWNER OF THE TV STUDIO; THE MAJORITY DISMISSED THE NEGLIGENT HIRING, RETENTION AND SUPERVISION CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST CW; THERE WAS A TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, over a two-justice dissenting opinion, determined the cause of action against Bill Cosby’s employer (CW) alleging negligent hiring, retention and supervision should have been dismissed  Plaintiff alleged she was subjected to sexual misconduct by Bill Cosby, the star of the television series “The Cosby Show,” while Cosby was employed by CW:

​To establish a claim of negligence, a plaintiff must show that there was a duty owed to the plaintiff by the defendant, that there was a breach of that duty, and that there was an injury proximately resulting therefrom … . Further, “[w]here the negligence claim relates to an employer’s retention and supervision of an employee, the complaint must include allegations that: (1) the employer had actual or constructive knowledge of the employee’s propensity for the sort of behavior which caused the injured party’s harm; (2) the employer knew or should have known that it had the ability to control the employee and of the necessity and opportunity for exercising such control; and (3) the employee engaged in tortious conduct on the employer’s premises or using property or resources available to the employee only through their status as an employee, including intellectual property and confidential information” … . * * *

… [T]he sole factor that distinguishes the present complaint from the negligent hiring, retention, and supervision claim against CW that we dismissed in B.B [a similar action against Bill Cosby by a different plaintiff] is the allegation in this case that plaintiff visited Cosby at CW’s television studio. But plaintiff does not allege that anything remotely illegal or tortious occurred during this one innocuous studio visit. Given that plaintiff had no relationship with CW and no tortious act was committed upon CW’s premises … , and given that Cosby is not alleged to have directly used any CW resources in committing his assaults … , the bare allegations that Cosby met with plaintiff at CW’s television studio and used his status as the star of a CW-produced television show to impress her — neither of which constitutes independently tortious or illegal activity — does not give rise to a sufficient nexus between Cosby’s employment by CW and his alleged assaults on plaintiff to support making CW liable for Cosby’s reprehensible conduct.

From the dissent:

… Cosby’s alleged use of the set to gain plaintiff’s trust provides the nexus between Cosby’s employment by CW and his alleged assaults; that nexus was not present in B.B. The allegation that Cosby groomed and preyed on plaintiff by inviting her to the set, and claiming that The Cosby Show wanted to hire plaintiff, satisfies the pleading requirement that Cosby “us[ed] property or resources available to [him] only through [his] status as an employee” … . Picard v Cosby, 2026 NY Slip Op 05612, First Dept 10-1-26

Practice Point: Consult this decision for an in-depth discussion of the elements of “negligent hiring, retention and supervision.”​

 

, ,

HERE IN THIS BUS-TRAFFIC-ACCIDENT CASE, THE DEFENDANTS ADMITTED THE BUS DRIVER WAS ACTING WITHIN THE SCOPE OF HIS EMPLOYMENT AT THE TIME OF THE ACCIDENT; A NEGLIGENT-HIRING-AND-RETENTION CAUSE OF ACTION, THEREFORE, WAS NOT AVAILABLE TO THE PLAINTIFFS; THE PLAINTIFFS WERE NOT ENTITLED TO DISCOVERY OF THE DRIVER’S PERSONNEL FILE OR THE POLICY MANUAL FOR DRIVER RETENTION AND TRAINING BECAUSE BECAUSE THOSE DOCUMENTS WERE NOT RELEVANT TO THE EMPLOYER’S LIABILITY UNDER RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court in this bus-traffic-accident case, determined that neither the bus driver’s personnel file nor the policy manual relating to the retention and training of the bus driver were discoverable. Those records would only be relevant to an action for negligent hiring and retention, which (generally) is not available when the suit against the driver’s employer is based upon respondeat superior:

Generally, “where an employee is acting within the scope of his or her employment, the employer is liable for the employee’s negligence under a theory of respondeat superior, and a plaintiff may not proceed with a cause of action to recover damages for negligent hiring and retention” … . Thus, since here, the defendants admit that [the driver] was acting within the scope of his employment at the time of the accident, neither his personnel file nor the portions of the defendants’ policy manual relating to the retention or training of [the driver] are discoverable … . In addition, the plaintiff failed to show that any alleged remaining portions of the policy manual “would yield matter material and necessary to the prosecution or defense of the action” … . Lewis v New York City Tr. Auth., 2026 NY Slip Op 05175, Second Dept 9-2-26

​Practice Point: Where the employer admits the employee was acting within the scope of his employment at the time of the accident, the employer is liable for the negligence of the employee under a theory of respondeat superior. Generally, in that circumstance a negligent hiring and retention cause of action is not available to the plaintiff.

 

, , ,

IN THIS LABOR LAW ARTICLE 6 AND BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION FOR UNPAID COMMISSIONS, PLAINTIFF, WHO SUED GAIA PRODUCE AS HIS EMPLOYER, SOUGHT TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT TO ADD ANOTHER PARTY AS HIS EMPLOYER; BASED UPON THE DEFINITION OF “EMPLOYER” IN THE LABOR LAW, THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT WAS PROPER AND SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff should have been allowed to amend the complaint to add a defendant, Nehoumovich. The suit against plaintiff’s employer, Gaia Produce, alleged the failure to pay commissions in violation of Labor Law article 6. Plaintiff alleged Nehoumovich was also plaintiff’s employer. Based on the definition of “employer” in the Labor Law, the Second Department held the proposed amendment was not palpably insufficient or patently devoid of merit:

“Article 6 of the Labor Law sets forth a comprehensive set of statutory provisions enacted to strengthen and clarify the rights of employees to the payment of wages” … . “Labor Law § 190(3) broadly defines an ’employer’ as ‘any person, corporation, limited liability company, or association employing any individual in any occupation, industry, trade, business or service'” … . “Under the ‘economic reality’ test, the relevant factors include whether the alleged employer (1) had the power to hire and fire the employees, (2) supervised and controlled employee work schedules or conditions of employment, (3) determined the rate and method of payment, and (4) maintained employment records” … . The Supreme Court is “also free to consider any other factors it deems relevant to its assessment of the economic realities” … .

Here, the proposed amendment to add Nahoumovich as a defendant was not palpably insufficient or patently devoid of merit … . The proposed amended complaint alleged, inter alia, that Nahoumovich was “responsible for . . . hiring and firing,” that he “supervised [the] [p]laintiff,” “assign[ed] [the plaintiff] responsibilities concerning negotiating, pricing, and collecting,” that he “was involved in determining the terms and conditions of [the plaintiff’s] employment” and “how [the plaintiff’s] commissions were calculated,” and that he “overs[aw] commission reports.” The plaintiff further submitted a transcript of his own deposition testimony regarding those allegations, and that of Nahoumovich, who acknowledged, among other things, that he made certain hiring recommendations, supervised the plaintiff, provided the plaintiff with directives, and set up the commission structure. The fact that Nahoumovich did not sign the plaintiff’s paychecks is not dispositive … . Under the totality of the circumstances presented here, the plaintiff plausibly alleged that Nahoumovich was an “employer” within the meaning of Labor Law § 190(3) … . Sproule v Gaia Produce, LLC, 2026 NY Slip Op 04971, Second Dept 8-12-26

Practice Point: Consult this decision for insight into the criteria for determining whether a party is an “employer” within the meaning of the Labor Law in an action seeking unpaid commissions.

 

, ,

PETITIONER POLICE OFFICER WAS TERMINATED FOR MISCONDUCT AND SOUGHT TO BRING A CPLR ARTICLE 78 PROCEEDING; THE CITY CHARTER REQUIRED THE FILING OF A NOTICE OF CLAIM AS A CONDITION PRECEDENT FOR ANY NONTORT ACTION AGAINST THE CITY; PETITIONER FAILED TO TIMELY FILE A NOTICE OF CLAIM; BECAUSE THE CHARTER MAKES NO PROVISION FOR SERVING A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM IN NONTORT ACTIONS, SUPREME COURT DID NOT HAVE AUTHORITY TO GRANT PETITONER’S REQUEST FOR PERMISSION TO SERVE A LATE NOTICE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the court did not have the authority to grant the petitioner, a police officer terminated for misconduct, an extension of time to file a late notice of claim against the city. The city charter did not have a provision for service of a late notice for nontort actions. Petitioner was attempting to bring a CPLR article 78 proceeding contesting his termination:

Section C6.47(A) of the City Charter for the City of Newburgh provides that, for nontort claims, no action or special proceeding shall be maintained against the City unless “a written verified claim . . . was served on the City . . . within three months after the accrual of such claim.” The service of a notice of claim is thus a condition precedent to maintaining an action or proceeding against the City … . “[S]tatutory requirements conditioning suit against a governmental entity must be strictly construed” … .

Here, it is undisputed that the petitioner failed to serve a notice of claim within three months after his claim accrued, as required by section C6.47 of the City Charter for the City of Newburgh. Moreover, unlike other notice statutes, section C6.47 of the City Charter for the City of Newburgh does not provide courts with the authority to extend the time for the service of a notice of claim arising upon nontort claims … . Consequently, since this proceeding is not founded upon tort, the Supreme Court was without authority to grant the petitioner’s motion for leave to serve a late notice of claim … . Matter of Canario v City of Newburgh, 2026 NY Slip Op 04945, Second Dept 8-12-26

Practice Point: If the controlling legislation, here a city charter, makes no provision allowing a party to seek permission to serve of a late notice of claim, a court cannot grant such permission. Here the city charter did not include a “late notice” provision for nontort actions against the city.

 

,

THE THIRD DEPARTMENT CONFIRMED THE PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD’S (PERB’S) RULING THAT THE VILLAGE IMPROPERLY COERCED A VILLAGE EMPLOYEE TO RESIGN FROM THE UNION AND ACCEPT A LOWER SALARY (THIRD DEPT). ​

The Third Department, confirming the rulings of the Public Employment Relations Board (PERB), in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Fisher, determined the village improperly coerced a village employee to resign from the union and accept a lower salary. The opinion is too detailed and complex to fairly summarize here. The opinion is will-worth reading to gain an understanding of the issues which arise in an employment dispute between a union and a municipality, the application of the Taylor Law, and the jurisdiction and role of the PERB.  Matter of Village of Monticello v AFSCME Local 750-9, Council 66, AFL-CIO, 2026 NY Slip Op 04805, Third Dept 7-30-26

 

, ,

STATUTORY PENALTIES ARE NOT AVAILABLE IN CLASS ACTIONS UNLESS THE STATUTE SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZES RECOVERY IN A CLASS ACTION, NOT THE CASE HERE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the class action plaintiffs were not entitled to class certification for the causes of action seeking statutory penalties and attorneys’ fees for failure to provide wage notices and statements in violation of Labor Law section 195 (1) and (3):

CPLR 901(b) provides that, “[u]nless a statute creating or imposing a penalty, or a minimum measure of recovery specifically authorizes the recovery thereof in a class action, an action to recover a penalty, or minimum measure of recovery created or imposed by statute may not be maintained as a class action.” The Labor Law provides for statutory penalties for violations of Labor Law § 195(1) and (3) (see id. §§ 198[1-b], [1-d] …). Inasmuch as Labor Law § 198(1-b) and § 198(1-d) do not specifically authorize recovery as part of a class action, the court should not have granted certification with respect to those issues … Maylou v Mittal, 2026 NY Slip Op 04497, Second Dept 7-22-26

Practice Point: Here the class action plaintiffs sought recovery of statutory penalties. The statutory penalties could not be recovered in a class action because the statute did not explicitly so provide.

 

, ,

FOR PURPOSES OF THE “RELATION-BACK DOCTRINE,” A DEFENDANT CAN BE VICARIOUSLY LIABLE FOR THE WORK OF AN INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR IF THE WORK IS “INHERENTLY DANGEROUS;” THE EXCAVATION WORK WAS “INHERENTLY DANGEROUS;” THE PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT TO ADD THE INDEPENDENT CONTRACTORS AFTER THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS HAD RUN SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court., determined plaintiff’s motion to amend the complaint by adding independent contractors hired in connection with excavation work on adjacent property should have been granted. The excavation work caused plaintiff’s building to collapse. The statute of limitations for the negligence causes of action had run. A defendant can be vicariously liable for the actions of independent contractors if the work is “inherently dangerous.” Because this work was “inherently dangerous,” the defendants and the independent contractors are “united in interest” such that the relation-back doctrine applies:

… [T]he plaintiff satisfied the second prong of the relation-back test with respect to the causes of action sounding in negligence and gross negligence, as the plaintiff established that the proposed defendants and the original defendants were united in interest as to those causes of action. “As a general rule, ‘a party who retains an independent contractor, as distinguished from a mere employee or servant, is not liable for the independent contractor’s negligent acts'” … . However, this general rule is subject to various exceptions, including where the work performed is inherently dangerous … . In this case, the amended complaint and the proposed second amended complaint alleged sufficient facts demonstrating that the work being performed was inherently dangerous and, thus, the original defendants could be held vicariously liable for the negligent acts or omissions of the proposed defendants … . Further, the plaintiff satisfied the third prong of the relation-back test, as the plaintiff demonstrated that the proposed defendants knew or should have known that, but for a mistake by the plaintiff as to the identity of the proper parties, the action would have been brought against them as well … . Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have granted that branch of the plaintiff’s motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3025(b) for leave to amend the amended complaint to add the proposed defendants as defendants with respect to the causes of action sounding in negligence and gross negligence … . Crossbay Assoc., LLC v Singh, 2026 NY Slip Op 03941, Second Dept 6-24-26

Practice Point: A party can be vicariously liable for the work done by an independent contractor if the work is “inherently dangerous.” The excavation work at issue in this case was deemed inherently dangerous.

 

, , , ,

THE LABOR LAW PREVAILING-WAGE PROVISIONS APPLY TO PUBLIC WORKS CONTRACTS; ANY CONTRACTUAL ATTEMPT TO SHORTEN THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IS UNENFORECABLE (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Singas, answering two certified questions from the Second Circuit, determined (1) the Labor Law provisions requiring that workers receive the prevailing wage for public works projects apply irrespective of the language in a contract, and (2) any provisions purporting to shorten the statute of limitation periods in public works contracts are unenforceable:

We have accepted two certified questions from the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit concerning third-party beneficiary breach of contract claims to enforce the right of a public works project employee to receive a prevailing wage under the Labor Law. We hold that Labor Law § 220 makes such claims available regardless of the underlying contract’s language and that given the unique status of the constitutional and statutory right to a prevailing wage, agreements to shorten limitation periods in public works contracts are unenforceable against such claims. ​Walton v Comfort Sys. USA (Syracuse), Inc., 2026 NY Slip Op 03911, CtApp 6-23-26

 

, , ,

THE EQUAL RIGHTS AMENDMENT DOES NOT RENDER THE MANDATORY RETIREMENT AGES FOR JUDGES UNCONSTITUTIONAL (CT APP). ​

The Court of Appeals determined the mandatory retirement ages for judges (70 and 76) do not violate the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) and do not constitute “age discrimination:”

Members of the judiciary in New York State have been subject to a mandatory retirement age since the adoption of our first State Constitution in 1777. In the current Constitution, article VI, § 25 (b) mandates retirement at 70 years old, with an opportunity for certain judges and justices to serve until age 76. Petitioners, former and sitting justices of the New York State Courts, contend that this provision was implicitly repealed by the Equal Rights Amendment (“ERA”) of 2024, which amended article I, § 11 to add, inter alia, age to the classes protected from discrimination in the exercise of civil rights. Petitioners argue that as a result of this alleged implicit repeal, Judiciary Law §§ 23 and 115, which together implement the constitutional mandatory retirement age cap and certification system set forth in article VI, § 25 (b), are now unconstitutional. However, we have long held that implied repeal is disfavored … . The text, purpose, and history of these constitutional provisions establish that they operate independently: article VI, § 25 (b)’s retirement mandate addresses a different constitutional matter than the ERA, and the two provisions are not antagonistic and may be harmonized. Therefore, we affirm the Appellate Division order affirming dismissal of the underlying petition. Matter of Miller v State of New York, 2026 NY Slip Op 03907, CtApp 6-18-26

, ,

IN A SUIT BY LIMOUSINE DRIVERS AGAINST LIMOUSINE SERVICE PROVIDERS ALLEGING UNDERPAYMENT, THE DEFENDANT LIMOUSINE SERVICES PROVIDERS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THEY WERE ENTITLED TO THE TAXICAB EXCEPTION FROM LABOR LAW WAGE REQUIREMENTS AND DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE DRIVERS WERE PRECLUDED FROM SUIT BY THE TAX ESTOPPEL DOCTRINE (WHERE A PARTY ASSERTS A POSITION CONTRADICTED BY INFORMATION IN TAX FORMS) (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Christopher, reversing Supreme Court, determined the defendant limousine service providers (XYZ) did not demonstrate they were entitled to the taxicab exception to the wage requirements in the Labor Law and did not demonstrate the plaintiffs-drivers were precluded from suing pursuant to the tax estoppel doctrine. The opinion is too detailed to fairly summarize here:

… [T]he defendants failed to establish, prima facie, that the plaintiffs were employed or permitted to work as a driver engaged in operating a taxicab (see Labor Law § 651[5][d]; 12 NYCRR 142-2.14[c][6]). * * *

… [T]he plaintiffs’ admissions that they declared themselves “self-employed” on their income tax returns were inadequate to establish, prima facie, that the plaintiffs should be estopped from asserting the existence of an employment relationship. The determination of the existence of an employment relationship “involve[s] a mixed question of law and fact” … , and the plaintiffs’ admissions that they declared themselves “self-employed” on their income tax returns is not inconsistent with their allegations that XYZ exercised control over the plaintiffs’ work, inter alia, by paying the plaintiffs according to XYZ’s own policies and that XYZ, in exercising that control, unlawfully misclassified the plaintiffs as independent contractors … . Abdelhamed v XYZ Limousine, Inc., 2026 NY Slip Op 03770, Second Dept 6-17-26

Practice Point: Consult this opinion for an in-depth analysis of the taxicab exception to the Labor Law wage requirements.

Practice Point: Consult this opinion for an in-depth analysis of the tax estoppel doctrine.