You are here: / Employment Law
, , ,

PETITIONER, A CORRECTION OFFICER WHO WAS INJURED MOVING LAUNDRY BAGS BLOCKING A HALLWAY IN THE JAIL, WAS ENTITLED TO GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW 207-C BENEFITS; ALTHOUGH SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE TRANSFERRED THE ARTICLE 78 TO THE APPELLATE DIVISION, THE FOURTH DEPARTMENT CONSIDERED THE MERITS (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing the denial of General Municipal Law 207-a benefits in this Article 78 proceeding, determined petitioner, a correction officer, was injured performing her duties when she attempted to move laundry bags blocking the hallway in the jail housing unit. The Fourth Department noted that Supreme Court should not have transferred the Article 78 proceeding to the appellate division because the determination was not based upon a hearing at which evidence was taken “pursuant to direction by law:”

… Supreme Court erred in transferring the proceeding to this Court pursuant to CPLR 7804 (g) on the ground that the petition raised a substantial evidence issue. Respondent’s determination “was not ‘made as a result of a hearing held, and at which evidence was taken, pursuant to direction by law’ (CPLR 7803 [4]). Rather, the determination was the result of a hearing conducted pursuant to the terms of [an] agreement” between petitioner’s union and respondent … . Nevertheless, in the interest of judicial economy, we consider the merits of the petition …. …

Petitioner testified at the hearing that she thought the laundry bags outside the main entrance door were a “safety issue,” particularly because they would block other officers from moving through the hallway quickly and because persons using the hallway may get hurt. She further testified that her training and job responsibilities required her to address safety concerns. Petitioner also submitted documentary evidence that correction officers were under the duty to ensure that laundry bags are not placed on the housing unit floor at any time. Moreover, it is undisputed that there was no policy prohibiting correction officers from moving laundry bags. Although respondent submitted testimony that correction officers should order inmates to move laundry bags, that testimony did not address the location of the laundry bags and the safety hazard posed by laundry bags left in a hallway. We therefore conclude that the determination to deny petitioner’s application for section 207-c benefits was arbitrary and capricious … . Matter of Williams v County of Onondaga, 2023 NY Slip Op 02262, Fourth Dept 4-28-23

Practice Point: A correction officer injured moving laundry bags blocking a jail hallway was performing her duties and was entitled to General Municipal Law 207-c benefits.

Practice Point: An Article 78 proceeding should not be transferred to the appellate division unless evidence was taken at a hearing “pursuant to direction by law.” Here the hearing, which was held pursuant to an agreement between the respondent and petitioner’s union, did not meet that criteria.

 

, , ,

​ A FIRE DISTRICT CANNOT BE HELD VICARIOUSLY LIABLE UNDER A NEGLIGENCE STANDARD FOR THE ACTIONS OF A VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTER DRIVING A FIRE TRUCK WHERE THE DRIVER DOES NOT VIOLATE THE RECKLESS-DISREGARD STANDARD FOR EMERGENCY VEHICLES (CT APP). ​

The Court of Appeals, reversing the appellate division, over a two-judge dissent, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Cannataro, determined a municipality cannot be held vicariously liable under a negligence standard for the actions of a volunteer firefighter driving a firetruck where the driver is protected by the higher reckless-disregard standard for emergency vehicles under the Vehicle and Traffic Law:

Based on undisputed testimony that the firefighter was responding to an alarm of fire, had activated the fire truck’s lights and sirens, stopped the fire truck before entering the intersection, and proceeded slowly through the red light, Supreme Court held that the firefighter had “established prima facie entitlement to the exemption in Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1104,” and that plaintiff had failed to raise a triable issue in opposition as to whether the firefighter acted with reckless disregard. The court therefore granted summary judgment to the firefighter. However, the court reached a different result with respect to the vicarious liability of the District. Relying on General Municipal Law § 205-b, “which states, in part, that ‘fire districts created pursuant to law shall be liable for the negligence of volunteer firefighters,'” the court concluded that questions of fact existed regarding whether the firefighter “was negligent in failing to see plaintiff’s vehicle approaching,” and, thus, the District was not entitled to summary judgment. * * *

… [S]ection 1104 does more than simply immunize firefighters from negligence liability for otherwise privileged conduct … . It modifies their underlying duties in the defined contexts by (i) permitting categories of conduct which would violate other drivers’ ordinary duty of care, (ii) specifying particular safety precautions which must be observed when engaging in such conduct, and (iii) requiring emergency vehicle drivers to avoid recklessness even when engaged in the privileged conduct. When a volunteer firefighter’s actions satisfy all of these conditions and thus are privileged, there is simply no breach of duty or negligence which can be imputed to a fire district under General Municipal Law § 205-b. Anderson v Commack Fire Dist., 2023 NY Slip Op 02028, CtApp 4-20-23

Practice Point: If the volunteer firefighter driving a firetruck does not violate the reckless disregard standard for emergency vehicles, the fire district cannot be held vicariously liable under a negligence standard.

 

, , , , ,

UNDER THE JONES ACT OHIO HAD JURISDICTION TO APPOINT ADMINSTRATORS OF THE ESTATE OF DECEDENT WHO ALLEGEDLY DIED OF EXPOSURE TO ASBESTOS ON MERCHANT MARINE SHIPS; THE NEW YORK EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE WAS TIMELY AND PROPERLY SUBSTITUTED FOR THE OHIO ADMINISTRATORS (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, over a dissent, in a complex decision which cannot be fairly summarized here, determined: (1) under the Jones Act Ohio had jurisdiction to appoint administrators for decedent who allegedly died from asbestos exposure on merchant marine ships where he was employed; and (2) substitution of a New York personal representative, executor of the estate, was proper and timely:

… [T]he Jones Act provides that when a seaman dies from an employment injury “the personal representative of the seaman may elect to bring a civil action at law, with the right of trial by jury, against the employer” (46 USC § 30104).

The Jones Act grants a right of action to the personal representative “without other description” … . The Act does not require that the personal representative be either “a domiciliary or ancillary administrator” … . A domiciliary administrator has standing to file a Jones Act or FELA [Federal Employers’ Liability Act] lawsuit in another state … . However, nothing “explicitly clothes a domiciliary administrator with the exclusive right to maintain such an action” because such a requirement is inconsistent with “the remedial nature” of FELA and the “representative character” of such a suit … .

Notably, the personal representative’s authority under the Jones Act derives from “a federal statutory right and power given to carry out the policy of the federal statutes” and “is not limited to the confines of the State where he was appointed but is co-extensive with general federal jurisdiction” … . Bartel v Maersk Line, Ltd., 2023 NY Slip Op 02058, First Dept 4-20-23

Practice Point: Under the Jones Act, the estate of a merchant-marine employee who died from exposure to asbestos on the employer’s ships may sue the employer. Here the suit was deemed properly started by administrators appointed by an Ohio court and the New York executor was properly and timely substituted for the Ohio administrators.

See also the companion decision: Bartel v Farrell Lines, 2023 NY Slip Op 02057, First Dept 4-20-23

 

, , , ,

ALTHOUGH THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE CONTENTS OF A CLAIM AGAINST THE STATE IN COURT OF CLAIMS ACT SECTION 11 ARE STRICT AND JURISDICTIONAL, THE CLAIMANT IS NOT REQUIRED TO ALLEGE EVIDENTIARY FACTS (SECOND DEPT).

​The Second Department, reversing the Court of Claims, determined the claim in this Child Victims Act proceeding sufficiently stated the nature of the claim. The claimant alleged he was sexually abused in state-run foster homes every week for two years (1994 – 1996}. The claim alleged negligent hiring, retention or supervision:

The only reason identified by the Court of Claims in the order appealed from, and by the defendant on appeal, for concluding that the claim failed to state the nature of the claim is that, while the claim included an allegation that the defendant had actual or constructive notice of the alleged sexual abuse, it did not supply any “details” as to how the defendant received notice of the alleged abuse. Although the requirements of Court of Claims Act § 11(b) are strict, and jurisdictional in nature, the fact remains that the claim is a pleading, the contents of which are merely allegations. As the defendant correctly contends, “[a] necessary element of a cause of action to recover damages for negligent hiring, retention, or supervision is that the employer knew or should have known of the employee’s propensity for the conduct which caused the injury” … . Nonetheless, “[c]auses of action alleging negligence based upon negligent hiring, retention, or supervision are not statutorily required to be pleaded with specificity” ,,, . The manner in which the defendant acquired actual or constructive notice of the alleged abuse is an evidentiary fact, to be proved by the claimant at trial. In a pleading, “the plaintiff need not allege his [or her] evidence” … . Martinez v State of New York, 2023 NY Slip Op 01990, Second Dept 4-19-23

Practice Point: A claim (i.e., the pleading) against the state must meet the strict, jurisdictional “contents” requirements in Court of Claims Act section 11. But the claim is merely a pleading and need not allege evidentiary facts to survive a motion to dismiss.

 

, , ,

IF THE WORKER’S COMPENSATION BOARD FINDS A DEFENDANT IN A CONSTRUCTION-ACCIDENT ACTION WAS PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYER, PLAINTIFF’S RECOVERY AGAINST THE EMPLOYER IS RESTRICTED TO WORKER’S COMPENSATION BENEFITS AND OTHER DEFENDANTS CANNOT MAINTAIN ACTIONS FOR CONTRIBUTION OR INDEMNIFICATION AGAINST THAT EMPLOYER (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Wan, determined the employees were restricted to worker’s compensation benefits in this construction-accident action against their employers and the other defendants were precluded from seeking contribution and indemnification from the employers:

Workers’ Compensation Law § 11(1) precludes recovery by “any third person” against “[a]n employer” for contribution or indemnity “for injuries sustained by an employee acting within the scope of his or her employment” unless the employee “has sustained a ‘grave injury'” or there is a “written contract entered into prior to the accident or occurrence by which the employer had expressly agreed to contribution to or indemnification of the claimant.” Despite this clear directive, the Supreme Court, relying on this Court’s decision in Baten v Northfork Bancorporation, Inc. (85 AD3d 697), permitted cross-claims sounding in contribution and indemnity to survive against an entity on the ground that triable issues of fact existed with respect to whether that entity was an employer, regardless of a Workers’ Compensation Board determination on this issue. Here, we clarify that, notwithstanding our prior decision in Baten, no claim for indemnity or contribution may be maintained against an entity determined to be an employer by the Workers’ Compensation Board except in the limited circumstances specified in Workers’ Compensation Law § 11.* * *

… [W]e hold that Workers’ Compensation Law § 11 precludes recovery by any third party for contribution and indemnity against an entity determined by the WCB [Workers’ Compensation Board] to be the plaintiff’s employer except where the injured employee has suffered a grave injury or where the employer has expressly agreed in writing to contribute or indemnify.  Velazquez-Guadalupe v Ideal Bldrs. & Constr. Servs., Inc., 2023 NY Slip Op 02025, Second Dept 4-19-23

Practice Point: If the Workers’ Compensation Board determined a defendant in a construction-accident action was plaintiff’s employer, absent a “grave” injury or the employer’s agreement to contribute or indemnify, the plaintiff’s recovery is restricted to Workers’ Compensation benefits and there can be no recovery for contribution or indemnification against the employer by other defendants.

 

, ,

UNDER THE NEW YORK CITY HUMAN RIGHTS LAW, PLAINTIFF NEED NOT DEMONSTRATE AN ADVERSE EMPLOYMENT ACTION TO RECOVER FOR GENDER DISCRIMINATION (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s gender discrimination action under the NYC Human Rights Law (City HRL) should not have been dismissed:

Since “[t]he City HRL does not differentiate between sexual harassment and other forms of gender discrimination, but requires that sexual harassment be viewed as one species of sex- or gender-based discrimination” … , it was error to grant summary judgment dismissing plaintiff’s gender discrimination claim, while denying the motion with respect to the hostile work environment and sexual harassment claim. Moreover, plaintiff need not show an adverse employment action in order to establish a prima facie case of gender discrimination under the City HRL … . On this motion for summary judgment dismissing a claim under the City HRL, defendant bore the burden of showing that, based on the record evidence and drawing all reasonable inferences in plaintiff’s favor, no jury could find defendant liable for gender-based discrimination … . Here, plaintiff submits sufficient evidence to support her assertions that, after she rejected her supervisor’s sexual advances, she was unjustifiably criticized for her work product and attendance by her supervisors and was stripped of her assignments, which permits a finding that she was treated “less well” based on her gender … . Bond v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 2023 NY Slip Op 01939, First Dept 4-13-23

Practice Point: Under the New York City Human Rights Law a plaintiff need only show she was treated “less well” based on her gender. No adverse employment action is required.

 

, , , , ,

COURTS HAVE ONLY A LIMITED POWER TO REVIEW AN ARBITRATOR’S RULING; HERE SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE FOUND THE ARBITRATOR EXCEEDED HER AUTHORITY BY ORDERING BACK PAY FOR A REINSTATED COUNTY EMPLOYEE (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the arbitrator in this employment dispute did not exceed her authority when she ordered that the employee be reinstated with back pay. The employee had been absent from work and the employer (the county) the absence a voluntary resignation. Supreme Court had affirmed the employee’s reinstatement but found the arbitrator had exceeded her authority by ordering the back pay:

… “[J]udicial review of arbitral awards is extremely limited. Pursuant to CPLR 7511 (b) (1), a court may vacate an award when it violates a strong public policy, is irrational or clearly exceeds a specifically enumerated limitation on an arbitrator’s power” … . “Outside of these narrowly circumscribed exceptions, courts lack authority to review arbitral decisions, even where an arbitrator has made an error of law or fact” … . “[I]t is well settled that an arbitrator has broad discretion to determine a dispute and fix a remedy, and that any contractual limitation on that discretion must be contained, either explicitly or incorporated by reference, in the arbitration clause itself” … .

We discern no basis to vacate the arbitrator’s award as to back pay and benefits. Notably, the CBA [collective bargaining agreement] does not contain “a specifically enumerated limitation on the arbitrator’s power” … . In fact, it does not explicitly limit the arbitrator’s authority in any way other than stating that the arbitrator does not have the power to “amend, modify or delete any provision of the CBA,” which does not set any limitations on the arbitrator’s power to order the remedy that he or she sees fit … . Matter of County of Albany (Civil Serv. Empls. Assn., Inc., Local 1000, AFSCME, AFL-CIO, Albany County Local 801), 2023 NY Slip Op 01828, Third Dept 4-6-23

Practice Point: Here the arbitrator ordered a county employee reinstated with back pay. Supreme Court held the arbitrator exceeded her powers by ordering back pay. The Third Department noted the courts’ limited review powers re: arbitration rulings and found no basis for concluding the arbitrator had exceeded her powers.

 

, ,

PLAINTIFF, AGE 61, WAS HIRED FOR AS A CORRECTIONS OFFICER BUT RESIGNED AFTER TWO DAYS AT THE TRAINING ACADEMY; PLAINTIFF STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR AGE DISCRIMINATION AND A HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT; PLAINTIFF WAS NICKNAMED “GRANDMA” AND SUBJECTED TO RIDICULE (THIRD DEPT). ​

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff stated a cause of action for age discrimination/hostile work environment. Plaintiff, aged 61, was hired as a corrections officer. She only lasted a couple of days at the training academy. She allegedly was immediately nicknamed “Grandma” and was subjected to ridicule:

Even though plaintiff admitted that she was prepared for the intensive, para-military nature of an academy, she testified that she was not prepared for the humiliation based on the discriminatory conduct that was “singling [her] out by [her] age.” Despite that many of defendant’s witnesses — including the drill sergeant — did not have a recollection of the alleged discriminatory conduct, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission still had determined that there was reasonable cause to believe that defendant discriminated against plaintiff; such finding, although not dispositive, is some evidence of discrimination … . Given that the conduct spread beyond staff and plaintiff’s trainee class, but also to members of a previous class, further demonstrates the pervasive nature of the alleged discriminatory conduct — particularly in such a short period before plaintiff’s resignation. Accordingly, based on the foregoing, particularly plaintiff’s account of the drill sergeant’s conduct and the candid admissions by the administrative sergeant as to the objective nature of the comments being discriminatory … , we are satisfied that this proof, when viewed in a light most favorable to plaintiff, is sufficient to survive summary judgment and warrant a trial on plaintiff’s hostile work environment claim … .  White-Barnes v New York State Dept. of Corr. & Community Supervision, 2023 NY Slip Op 01561, Third Dept 3-23-23

Practice Point: Plaintiff was hired as a corrections officer at age 61. At the training academy she was called “Grandma” and ridiculed. She resigned after two days. The Third Department held the complaint stated an age-discrimination/hostile-work-environment cause of action and should not have been dismissed.

 

, , ,

THE NOTICE OF CLAIM IN THIS CHILD VICTIMS ACT SUIT AGAINST THE STATE SUFFICIENTLY ALLEGED WHEN THE ABUSE OCCURRED (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) the Court of Claims in this Child Victims Act (CVA) suit, determined the notice of claim sufficiently alleged the time when the alleged sexual abuse of claimant took place in a state psychiatric center. The court noted that the respondeat superior cause of action should be dismissed because any sexual abuse by a state employee would not be within the scope of employment as a matter of law:

… [T]he Court of Claims incorrectly determined that the claimant was required to allege the exact date on which the sexual abuse occurred … . The claimant’s allegations, including that the abuse occurred in 1993 while she was 14 years old and attending a gym class at Sagamore, were sufficient to satisfy the “time when” requirement of Court of Claims Act § 11(b) in this claim brought pursuant to the CVA … . Wagner v State of New York, 2023 NY Slip Op 01546, Second Dept 3-22-23

Practice Point; Here in this Child Victims Act suit, the allegation that the sexual abuse took place in 1993, when claimant was 14 and attending gym class met the “time when” requirement for a notice of claim.

 

, , ,

THE COMPLAINT STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR UNPAID OVERTIME WITHOUT SPECIFYING PARTICULAR DATES OR WEEKS; AFFIDAVITS ARE NOT DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE WHICH WILL SUPPORT A “DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE” MOTION TO DISMISS (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the complaint stated a cause of action for unpaid overtime wages pursuant to the Labor Law and the proof submitted by defendant did not support a motion to dismiss based on documentary evidence:

Plaintiffs’ complaint sufficiently states a claim for unpaid overtime wages in violation of Labor Law §§ 191 and 663 and 12 NYCRR 142-2.2 … . Plaintiffs allege that they were not compensated for hours spent before and after their shift, loading company vehicles and receiving job assignments, before traveling to construction sites throughout the New York City region … . Although the complaint does not contain the particular dates or weeks that plaintiffs were allegedly underpaid, it provides sufficient notice of their causes of action for unpaid wages and overtime based on pre-shift and post-shift work performed at defendant’s yard … .

In addition, defendant’s documentary evidence is insufficient to support a motion to dismiss under CPLR 3211(a)(1). Dismissal on the basis of documentary evidence is appropriate only if that evidence “utterly refutes plaintiff’s factual allegations, conclusively establishing a defense as a matter of law” … . Affidavits are not documentary evidence that can support a 3211(a)(1) motion … . The documentary evidence fails to utterly refute plaintiffs’ claim that they were not timely paid overtime compensation. Despite defendant’s assertions, it is unclear whether the daily reports submitted with its motion properly reflect the alleged work performed before plaintiffs’ shifts began or after their shifts had purportedly ended. Rosario v Hallen Constr. Co., Inc., 2023 NY Slip Op 01490, First Dept 3-21-23

Practice Point: Here the complaint stated a cause of action for unpaid overtime despite the absence of specific dates or week when plaintiffs were allegedly underpaid.

Practice Point: A motion to dismiss based on documentary evidence is not supported when the documents are affidavits.

 

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