You are here: / Employment Law
, ,

THE ACCIDENTAL DISCHARGE OF A FIREARM BY PLAINTIFF’S COWORKER DURING A FIREARMS TRAINING SESSION FOR ARMORED-CAR GUARDS WAS WITHIN THE DEFENDANT COWORKER’S SCOPE OF EMPLOYMENT; WORKERS’ COMPENSATION IS PLAINTIFF’S EXCLUSIVE REMEDY (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s exclusive remedy in this accidental shooting case was Workers’ Compensation. Plaintiff and defendant coworker were both armored-car guards attending a firearms training course required by their employer when plaintiff was shot. When plaintiff and defendant coworker were seated at a table waiting for the course to begin the coworker took out his loaded firearm and it discharged as he attempted to disassemble it. The bullet went through the table and struck plaintiff in the leg:

The record establishes that firearms were permitted in the classroom and that trainees would generally keep the weapons in a holster or a gun box but were prohibited from taking out and handling firearms in the classroom. Defendant was thus attending a mandatory firearms training course at which he was required to have the pistol for which he was seeking certification, the training was directly related to his job duties that involved carrying a firearm, he was permitted to have the firearm in the classroom, and he simply violated a safety rule by handling the firearm in the classroom, thereby causing it to accidentally discharge. Defendant’s violation of the safety provision “was not, in these circumstances, of such type or magnitude as to take . . . defendant out of the scope of his employment” … . In other words, defendant’s conduct constituted a simple lack of reasonable care, i.e., negligence … , and “[t]he Workers’ Compensation Law offers the only remedy for injuries caused by the coemployee’s negligence” … . Guida v Rivera Investigations, Inc., 2022 NY Slip Op 04443, Fourth Dept 7-8-22

Practice Point: During a firearms training course required by plaintiff’s employer, a coworker negligently took out his loaded firearm which accidentally discharged, striking plaintiff. Because the coworker’s actions, although negligent, were within the scope of the coworker’s employment, Workers’ Compensation was plaintiff’s exclusive remedy.

 

, ,

THERE ARE SUBSTANTIVE QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT THE NATURE OF THE AGREEMENTS BETWEEN PLAINTIFF EMPLOYER AND DEFENDANT EMPLOYEE RE: THE SALE OF DEFENDANT’S TAX PREPARATION BUSINESS TO PLAINTIFF AND WHETHER DEFENDANT SOLD HER CLIENT LIST TO PLAINTIFF; PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION ENFORCING THE RESTRICTIVE COVENANT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff-employer’s motion for a preliminary injunction in this violation-of-a-restrictive-covenant case should not have been granted. There were too many issues of fact about the nature of the parties’ agreement re: plaintiff’s purchase of defendant’s tax preparation business, including whether defendant turned over her client list to the plaintiff:

… [T]he plaintiff commenced this action against the defendant, its former employee, to recover damages for breach of contract. The plaintiff alleged … the parties entered into three agreements: a purchase agreement whereby the plaintiff purchased the defendant’s tax preparation business, including her client list; an agreement whereby the plaintiff employed the defendant as a tax preparer; and a confidentiality, nonsolicit, and noncompete agreement which, inter alia, contained restrictive covenants that, among other things, prohibited the defendant from soliciting the plaintiff’s clients. …

… [T]he plaintiff failed to demonstrate a clear right to relief and, thus, did not demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits. “‘[A] restrictive covenant will only be subject to specific enforcement to the extent that it is reasonable in time and area, necessary to protect the employer’s legitimate interests, not harmful to the general public and not unreasonably burdensome to the employee'” … . An employer’s interests justifying a restrictive covenant are limited “to the protection against misappropriation of the employer’s trade secrets or of confidential customer lists, or protection from competition by a former employee whose services are unique or extraordinary” … . Here, there are issues of fact as to what the parties agreed to, including whether the plaintiff purchased the rights to the defendant’s clients pursuant to the parties’ agreements and whether the plaintiff breached its own obligations pursuant to those agreements. Since these issues of fact exist, the plaintiff did not show a likelihood of success on the merits and, thus, failed to establish a clear right to preliminary injunctive relief … . R&G Brenner Income Tax Consultants v Fonts, 2022 NY Slip Op 04039, Second Dept 6-22-22

Practice Point: Where there are substantive questions of fact, a preliminary injunction should not be granted because a likelihood of success on the merits has not been demonstrated.

 

,

A GRADUATE OF AN ANTIGUA MEDICAL SCHOOL WHO HAD PASSED THE US MEDICAL LICENSING EXAMINATION WAS NOT ENTITLED TO LICENSURE AS A PHYSICIAN’S ASSISTANT IN NEW YORK (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined the appellant, who graduated from a medical school in Antigua (AUA) but was not licensed in New York, was not entitled to a license to practice in New York as a Physician’s Assistant (PA):

In processing his application, SED [NYS Department of Education] requested documentation from petitioner that he had graduated from a PA education program and passed the Physician Assistant National Certifying Examination (hereinafter PANCE). Petitioner, who had not satisfied either requirement, objected to providing those credentials, asserting that his medical doctorate education and successful completion of all four steps of the United States Medical Licensing Examination (hereinafter USMLE) qualified him for a PA license. * * *

The record supports a finding that, despite significant overlap in basic topics tested in the USMLE and the PANCE, the PANCE specifically tests PA-related practice topics. Noting that professional exam questions “must be closely aligned with the specific knowledge and skills needed in the practice of the profession,” SED concluded that, “[w]hile many of the broad medical content categories included on the PANCE can be found on the USMLE, the USMLE does not present them within the context of the PA profession and specific PA job tasks” and, additionally, “a portion of the PANCE covers topics related specifically to PA professional practice, which are not covered at all on the USMLE.” Matter of Hammonds v New York State Educ. Dept., 2022 NY Slip Op 03959, Third Dept 6-16-22

Practice Point: The topics tested by the US Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) are not identical to the topics tested by the Physician Assistant National Certifying Examination (PANCE). Therefore passing the USMLE did not entitle this applicant to licensure as a physician’s assistant in New York.

 

,

A FIREFIGHTER INJURED ON THE JOB RETURNED TO THE JOB BUT COULD NOT WORK THE 10 TO 24 HOUR SHIFTS WHICH ARE THE “REGULAR DUTIES” OF A FIREFIGHTER; BECAUSE SHE WAS NOT OFFERED THE FULL-TIME EQUIVALENT OF THE SHORTER SHIFTS OR LIGHT-DUTY WORK, SHE WAS ENITLTED TO GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW 207-A BENEFITS (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined petitioner, a firefighter who had injured her shoulder on the job, was entitled to General Municipal Law 207-a benefits:

A firefighter seeking section 207-a benefits must show “that his or her injury or illness results from the performance of his or her duties and that he or she is physically unable to perform his or her regular duties as a firefighter … . The regular duties of a firefighter for the City required shifts of between 10-24 hours, and the medical evidence is undisputed that petitioner could work only 8-hour shifts. Inasmuch as the evidence established that petitioner could not work the longer shifts, and she was not offered the full-time equivalent of the shorter shifts or light-duty work, the determination that she is not entitled to General Municipal Law § 207-a benefits is arbitrary and capricious. Matter of Newman v City of Tonawanda, 2022 NY Slip Op 03834, Fourth Dept 6-9-22

Practice Point: Here petitioner-firefighter was injured on the job. When she returned to the job she could not work the 10 to 24 hour shifts which are the “regular duties’ of a firefighter. She was assigned shorter shifts which resulted in less pay. She was therefore entitled to General Municipal Law 207-a benefits.

 

, , ,

THE HIGH SCHOOL PRINCIPAL WAS CHARGED WITH GIVING STUDENTS UNAUTHORIZED CREDITS TO INCREASE GRADUATION RATES; THE CHARGES REQUIRED INTENTIONAL CONDUCT; THE HEARING OFFICER DETERMINED THE PRINCIPAL DID NOT ACT INTENTIONALLY BUT WAS GUILTY OF THE CHARGES; THE INCONSISTENCY RENDERED THE RULING ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing the hearing officer’s ruling terminating petitioner’s employment as a high school principal, determined the hearing officer’s finding that petitioner did not act intentionally was inconsistent with finding petitioner guilty of any of the charges. Petitioner allegedly gave unauthorized credits to students in an effort to increase graduation rates:

… [T]he hearing officer’s finding that there was insufficient evidence to support a finding that the petitioner acted intentionally is inconsistent with a finding that the petitioner was guilty of any of the charges. Each of the 41 charges against the petitioner alleged that she knowingly and willfully approved the conferral of credits with full knowledge that such credit was unlawful, as part of an intentional scheme to accelerate credit acquisition in order to artificially inflate graduation rates. Because there was no allegation that the petitioner’s conduct was anything other than knowing and intentional, and because the hearing officer found that there was insufficient evidence that the petitioner acted intentionally, the hearing officer’s determination that the petitioner was guilty of all charges was arbitrary and capricious and without evidentiary support. At the hearing, the petitioner admitted to conduct that was, at most, negligent. There was no evidence to contradict the petitioner’s testimony that she did not act intentionally. Matter of Simpson v Poughkeepsie City Sch. Dist., 2022 NY Slip Op 03730, Second Dept 6-8-22

Practice Point: The high school principal was charged with giving students unauthorized credits to increase graduation rates. All the charges alleged intentional conduct. The hearing officer (correctly) found the principal did not act intentionally, but sustained the charges and terminated her employment. The inconsistency rendered the hearing officer’s ruling in the arbitration arbitrary and capricious.

 

, , ,

THE MANNER IN WHICH THE FIREFIGHTER’S GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW 207-A INJURY CLAIM SHOULD BE PROCESSED IS ARBITRABLE BECAUSE THE ISSUE IS ADDRESSED IN THE COLLECTIVE BARGANING AGREEMENT (CBA); THE PETITION TO STAY ARBITRATION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the petition to stay arbitration in this General Municipal Law 207-a injury claim by a firefighter should not have been granted. The manner in which a section 207-a claim is processed is an arbitrable matter:

… [T]he union filed a grievance alleging, inter alia, that the City was in violation of the CBA [collective bargaining agreement] and the negotiated General Municipal Law § 207-a policy by failing to adhere to the required procedures in processing a claim by one of the union’s members for General Municipal Law § 207-a benefits. . …

It is undisputed that there is no constitutional, statutory, or public policy provision prohibiting the arbitration of the dispute at issue in this matter…. [G]iven the breadth of the arbitration clause in this case, the dispute regarding the City’s processing of claims for General Municipal Law § 207-a benefits bore a reasonable relationship to the general subject matter of the CBA, since Article 10 of the CBA expressly refers to the negotiated policy for the provision of such benefits … . “[T]he question of the scope of the substantive provisions of the CBA is a matter of contract interpretation and application reserved for the arbitrator” … . Matter of City of New Rochelle v Uniformed Fire Fighters Assn., Inc., 2022 NY Slip Op 03722, Second Dept 6-8-22

Practice Point: Here the issue (how a firefighter’s General Municipal Law 207-a injury claim should be processed) was addressed in the collective bargaining agreement (CBA) was therefore arbitrable. The petition to stay arbitration should not have been granted.

 

, ,

CORPORATE SHAREHOLDERS AND OFFICERS MAY ONLY BE LIABLE FOR LABOR LAW (WAGE-PAYMENT-RELATED) VIOLATIONS IF THEY EXERCISE CONTROL OVER THE DAY-TO-DAY OPERATIONS OF THE CORPORATION, WHICH WAS ALLEGED HERE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court and reinstating defendants’ counterclaims alleging violations of the Labor Law, noted that corporate shareholders and officers can only be liable for Labor Law (wage-payment-related) violations if they exercise control of a corporation’s day-to-day operations, which was alleged here:

“[C]orporate shareholders and officers generally may not be subjected to civil liability for corporate violations of the Labor Law absent allegations that such persons exercised control of the corporation’s day-to-day operations by, for example, hiring and firing employees, supervising employee work schedules, and determining the method and rate of pay” … . Here, the defendants adequately alleged, inter alia, that the additional defendants controlled the day-to-day operations of the plaintiff, including the plaintiff’s payment practices. Interstate Home Loan Ctr., Inc. v United Mtge. Corp., 2022 NY Slip Op 03715, Second Dept 6-8-22

Practice Point: Corporate shareholders and officers may be liable for Labor Law (wage-payment-related) violations only if they exercise control over the day-to-day operations of the corporation.

 

, ,

DEFENDANT PROPERTY OWNER FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE IT WAS THE ALTER EGO OF PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYER OR THAT PLAINTIFF WAS DEFENDANT’S SPECIAL EMPLOYEE; THEREFORE PLAINTIFF’S PERSONAL INJURY ACTION WAS NOT PRECLUDED BY THE EXCLUSIVE REMEDY ASPECT OF THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant Zorn Realties, the owner of the property, did not demonstrate it was the alter ego of plaintiff’s employer, Zorn Poultry Farm, and did not demonstrate plaintiff was a special employee of Zorn Realties. Therefore, the negligence action stemming from plaintiff’s fall through a chute or a hole on defendant’s property was not precluded by the exclusive-remedy aspect of the Workers’ Compensation Law:

“‘A defendant moving for summary judgment based on the exclusivity defense of the Workers’ Compensation Law under this theory must show, prima facie, that it was the alter ego of the plaintiff’s employer'” … . “A defendant may establish itself as the alter ego of a plaintiff’s employer by demonstrating that one of the entities controls the other or that the two operate as a single integrated entity” … . However, “a mere showing that the entities are related is insufficient where a defendant cannot demonstrate that one of the entities controls the day-to-day operations of the other” … .

… Although the defendant presented evidence that the two entities were related inasmuch as they shared an address and a liability insurance policy, the defendant failed to establish that the entities shared officers or had identical owners. Additionally, the evidence showed that the entities served different purposes, had separate bank accounts, filed separate tax returns, and did not have a shared workers’ compensation policy … . …

“Many factors are weighed in deciding whether a special employment relationship exists, and generally no single one is decisive . . . Principal factors include who has the right to control the employee’s work, who is responsible for the payment of wages and the furnishing of equipment, who has the right to discharge the employee, and whether the work being performed was in furtherance of the special employer’s or the general employer’s business . . . The most significant factor is who controls and directs the manner, details, and ultimate result of the employee’s work'” … .

… [T]he defendant failed to establish … that the plaintiff was its special employee at the time of the accident because it did not submit sufficient evidence to establish, inter alia, that it controlled and directed the manner, details, and ultimate result of the plaintiff’s work, nor did it establish that the plaintiff had knowledge of and consented to a special employment relationship … . Mauro v Zorn Realties, Inc., 2022 NY Slip Op 03509, Second Dept 6-1-22

Practice Point: Here the defendant property owner was not able to take advantage of the exclusive-remedy aspect of the Workers’ Compensation Law in this personal injury action. Plaintiff’s employer was not the alter ego of defendant and plaintiff was not defendant’s special employee.

 

,

PLAINTIFF’S CAUSES OF ACTION FOR CONSTRUCTIVE DISCHARGE AND HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, CRITERIA EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court determined plaintiff’s causes of action for constructive discharge and hostile work environment should have been dismissed. The court laid out the criteria for those causes of action:

“An employee is constructively discharged when her or his employer, rather than discharging the plaintiff directly, deliberately created working conditions so intolerable that a reasonable person in the plaintiff’s position would have felt compelled to resign” … . Here, the defendants established, prima facie, that the plaintiff’s complaints were insufficient to show an intolerable work environment that would lead a reasonable person in that position to feel compelled to resign … . …

A hostile environment claim “involves repeated conduct,” not “[d]iscrete acts such as termination, failure to promote, denial of transfer, or refusal to hire” … . Here, the two discrete acts alleged by the plaintiff were insufficient to create a hostile work environment … . Blackman v Metropolitan Tr. Auth., 2022 NY Slip Op 03490, Second Dept 6-1-22

Practice Point: A “constructive discharge” employment-discrimination cause of action requires the deliberate creation of intolerable working conditions designed to force the plaintiff to quit (not demonstrated here). A “hostile work environment” employment-discrimination cause of action requires “repeated conduct” which is not demonstrated discrete acts such as termination, failure to promote, denial of transfer or refusal to hire.

 

, , ,

PLAINTIFF IN THIS NEGLIGENT-HIRING ACTION AGAINST THE HOSPITAL WHICH EMPLOYED A DOCTOR WHO ALLEGEDLY SEXUALLY ASSAULTED HER AND OTHER PATIENTS SOUGHT DISCOVERY; THE IDENTITIES OF THE OTHER ASSAULTED PATIENTS WERE NOT PROTECTED BY THE DOCTOR-PATIENT PRIVILEGE; PARTY STATEMENTS WERE NOT PROTECTED BY THE QUALITY ASSURANCE PRIVILEGE; AND PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO THE NAMES OF THE DOCTOR’S COWORKERS (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined plaintiff, who, along with other patients, was allegedly sexually assaulted by a doctor, Newman, employed by defendant hospital (Mount Sinai), was entitled to certain discovery. Plaintiff sought discovery of party statements, incident reports, the identities of the other assaulted patients, and the names of the doctor’s coworkers at the time of each assault. Plaintiff was entitled to documents not protected by the quality assurance privilege. The doctor-patient privilege did not extend to the identities of the other assaulted patients. And the names of the doctor’s coworkers were in a statement prepared by the Health and Human Services Department to which plaintiff was entitled:

We reject Mount Sinai’s assertion that privilege excuses it from complying with plaintiff’s discovery demands regarding the identities of the other three patients that defendant Newman assaulted. The doctor-patient privilege provided for by CPLR 4504(a) protects information relevant to a patient’s medical treatment, but the privilege does not cover incidents of abuse not part of a patient’s treatment … . Moreover, while the court stated that disclosure would violate HIPAA, federal regulations provide for disclosure of HIPAA-protected documents subject to a showing that the party seeking disclosure has made a good faith effort to secure a qualified protective order, and plaintiff has done so in each of her motions (45 CFR 164.512[e][ii], [v] …).

… [T]he identities of defendant Newman’s coworkers at the times of each of the assaults are relevant and must be disclosed, as those coworkers may have information concerning his conduct … . The names of the coworkers were contained in a statement of deficiencies prepared by Department of Health and Human Services, Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services, and plaintiff is entitled to production of that statement, redacted to remove conclusions of law and opinions of the Department of Health and Human Services … . Newman v Mount Sinai Med. Ctr., Inc., 2022 NY Slip Op 03327, First Dept 5-19-22

Practice Point: Here plaintiff was allegedly sexually assaulted by a doctor who pled guilty to assaulting other patients. Plaintiff sued the hospital which employed the doctor under a negligent hiring and retention theory. The names of the other assaulted patients were not protected by the physician-patient privilege. Party statements were not protected by the quality assurance privilege. And plaintiff was entitled to the names of the doctor’s coworkers.

 

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