You are here: / Employment Law
, , ,

ACTIONS PURSUANT TO NEW YORK CITY’S “FREELANCE ISN’T FREE ACT” (FIFA) WHICH ALLEGED DEFENDANTS FAILED TO PAY PLAINTIFFS-FREELANCERS SURVIVED MOTIONS TO DISMISS (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Moulton, in matters of first impression, interpreted the Freelance Isn’t Free Act (FIFA) in the context of motions to dismiss. The opinion is detailed and fact-specific and cannot be fairly summarized here. The plaintiffs alleged they were hired by defendants as freelancers and defendants’ failure pay was the basis of the lawsuits pursuant to FIFA. Most of the actions survived the motions to dismiss:

Enacted November 16, 2016 and effective May 15, 2017, FIFA is the first act of its kind in this country to provide legal protections for freelance workers against nonpayment for work performed … . FIFA defines a “freelance worker” as “any natural person or any organization composed of no more than one natural person, whether or not incorporated or employing a trade name, that is hired or retained as an independent contractor by a hiring party to provide services in exchange for compensation” … . A central issue in this case is whether plaintiffs fit within this definition. Chen v Romona Keveza Collection LLC, 2022 NY Slip Op 04702, First Dept 7-26-22

Practice Point: New York City enacted the “Freelance Isn’t Free Act” (FIFA) in 2017–the first law in the nation to specifically address the failure to pay freelancers.

 

,

ONE OF THE PERSONS INVOLVED IN A VIOLENT CONFRONTATION OUTSIDE A SCHOOL THREATENED TO RETURN THE NEXT DAY WITH A GUN; A TEACHER IMMEDIATELY HELD A MEETING WHERE CALLING IN SICK THE NEXT DAY WAS DISCUSSED; 23 TEACHERS CALLED IN SICK; THAT ACTION CONSTITUTED AN ILLEGAL STRIKE PURSUANT TO CIVIL SERVICE LAW 210 (THIRD DEPT). ​

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Clark, determined that the Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) properly found that the petitioner, the Buffalo Teachers Federation, engaged in an unlawful strike in violation of Civil Service Law section 210. There was a violent confrontation between two older individuals and students outside the school at dismissal time. One of the older individuals, while fleeing the police, said he was going to come back the next day with a gun. He said “if you show up to work tomorrow, you’re to all die.” A teacher at the school, Nicole LaRusch, called an immediate meeting where calling in sick the next day was discussed. Ultimately 23 teachers called in sick. The question before the Third Department was whether there was “substantial evidence” in the record to support the PERB’s ruling the action was an illegal strike:

Civil Service Law article 14, known as the Taylor Law, provides that “[n]o public employee or employee organization shall engage in a strike, and no public employee or employee organization shall cause, instigate, encourage, or condone a strike” (Civil Service Law § 210 [1]). The term “strike” is statutorily defined as “any strike or other concerted stoppage of work or slowdown by public employees” … . “[T]he substantial evidence standard is a minimal standard” that is “less than a preponderance of the evidence, and demands only that a given inference is reasonable and plausible, not necessarily the most probable” … . * * *

According to [a] teacher’s aide union representative, LaRusch stated that they were calling out sick because “the principal didn’t care about [their] safety” and that they were sending a message to “downtown” — meaning the district’s headquarters — so that they could “get resource officers in the school.” In our view, the … evidence amply supports the conclusion that, in violation of the Taylor Law, LaRusch and the 15 other absent teachers engaged in a concerted slowdown or stoppage of work as part of a coordinated effort to obtain a safer work environment … . Matter of Buffalo Teachers Fedn., Inc. v New York State Pub. Empl. Relations Bd., 2022 NY Slip Op 04680, Third Dept 7-21-22

Practice Point: 23 teachers called in sick after a person threatened to return to the school the next day with a gun and kill the teachers who showed up for work. That action was deemed an illegal strike in violation of the Civil Service Law section 210.

 

, , ,

PLAINTIFF SUED HER EMPLOYER IN NEGLIGENCE BASED UPON AN ALLEGED ASSAULT BY A COWORKER; THERE WERE QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER THE INJURY WAS IN THE COURSE OF PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYMENT; THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BOARD HAS PRIMARY JURISDICTION OVER THE DETERMINATION OF THE APPLICABILITY OF THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW; RATHER THAN DISMISSING THE NEGLIGENCE CAUSES OF ACTION, SUPREME COURT SHOULD HAVE REFERRED THE MATTER TO THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BOARD (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the causes of action against plaintiff’s employer for negligence alleging an assault by a coworker should not have been dismissed. Defendants’ alleged that Workers’ Compensation was the plaintiff’s exclusive remedy. The Workers’ Compensation Board has primary jurisdiction over determinations of the applicability of the Workers’ Compensation Law. Because there were questions of fact about whether plaintiff was injured in the course of her employment, Supreme Court should have referred the matter to the Workers’ Compensation Board:

… Supreme Court improperly granted those branches of the defendants’ motion which were pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) to dismiss the negligence causes of action … . Since “primary jurisdiction with respect to determinations as to the applicability of the Workers’ Compensation Law has been vested in the Workers’ Compensation Board,” it is “inappropriate for the courts to express views with respect thereto pending determination by the board” … . Here, questions of fact were raised as to whether the plaintiff was injured during the course of her employment, and thus, the court should have referred the matter to the Workers’ Compensation Board … . Chin v Doherty Enters., 2022 NY Slip Op 04532, Second Dept 7-13-22

Practice Point: Here plaintiff alleged she was assaulted by a coworker and sued her employer in negligence. There were questions of fact whether plaintiff was injured during the course her employment. The Workers’ Compensation Board has primary jurisdiction over determinations of the applicability of the Workers’ Compensation Law.. Therefore the negligence causes of action should not have been dismissed and the matter should have been referred to the Board.

, ,

WHERE THE EMPLOYER OF A PHYSICIAN HAS PAID THE PREMIUMS FOR MEDICAL MALPRACTICE INSURANCE AND THE INSURANCE COMPANY DEMUTUALIZES, ABSENT AN AGREEMENT TO THE CONTRARY, THE PROCEEDS GO TO THE PHYSICIAN, NOT THE EMPLOYER (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court based on a recent Court of Appeals ruling, determined the proceeds from the demutualization of a medical malpractice insurer belong to the physician, not to the physician’s employer (the plaintiff here):

The Court of Appeals has recently held that “when an employer pays premiums to a mutual insurance company to obtain a policy of which its employee is the policyholder, and the insurance company demutualizes, absent contrary terms in the contract of employment, insurance policy, or separate agreement, the policyholder is entitled to the proceeds from the demutualization” … .

… [D]efendant is entitled to the demutualization proceeds. There is no evidence of any contrary terms in the contract of employment, insurance policy, or separate agreement. In fact, defendant’s employment agreement provides that “[t]he Employer agrees that it will pay or reimburse the Employee for that portion of such insurance premiums that are attributable to the period coinciding with the Term [of employment].” Plaintiff … acknowledged … that it paid the insurance premiums “as a fringe benefit to the Physician employee.” … .

It is irrelevant that plaintiff, who is not listed as the policy administrator in the policy, paid the policy premiums during the relevant period and acted as the policy administrator … . Mid-Manhattan Physician Servs., P.C. v Dworkin, 2022 NY Slip Op 04523, First Dept 7-12-22

​Similar issues and result in Sullivan v Northwell Health, Inc., 2022 NY Slip Op 04525, First Dept 7-12-22

​Practice Point: Where the employer of a physician has paid the premiums for medical malpractice insurance and the insurance company demutualizes, absent an agreement to the contrary, the proceeds go to the physician, not the employer.

 

, ,

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.

 

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