You are here: / Employment Law
, ,

ALTHOUGH THE DOCTOR WAS AT WORK AT THE HOSPITAL WHEN HE WAS SHOT DURING A MASS SHOOTING, HIS INJURY WAS NOT WORK-RELATED WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing the Workers’ Compensation Board, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Reynolds Fitzgerald, determined the shooting of a doctor, Justin Timperio, although it occurred while Timperio was working at the hospital, was not a work-related injury within the meaning of the Workers’ Compensation Law. Timperio had brought a negligence lawsuit against the hospital in federal court and, in the context of the hospital’s motion for summary judgment, the federal court ruled the injuries did not arise from Timperio’s employment. The federal ruling did not colaterally estop the Workers’ Compensation Board from considering the claim in the first place (because it was not a final ruling), but the Board’s ultimate conclusion the injury was work-related was reversed by the Third Department:

The undisputed facts in the record demonstrate that the attack was perpetrated by an individual who was not employed by the hospital at the time of the attack (and had not worked there for over two years), was not and never was Timperio’s coworker, did not know Timperio and provided no reason for the attack prior to taking his own life. Nor did Timperio know the attacker, and there is no evidence that the attack was based upon an employment-related animus between the two individuals or that the attack had any nexus to Timperio’s employment or “performance of h[is] job duties” … . Such proof was sufficient to rebut the presumption articulated in Workers’ Compensation Law § 21 (1) and to establish that the assault on Timperio resulted exclusively from arbitrary, broad-sweeping and gravely maligned personal animosity and not from work-related differences with Timperio … . Matter of Timperio v Bronx-Lebanon Hosp., 2022 NY Slip Op 00711, Third Dept 2-3-22

 

, ,

THE TOWN HAD THE AUTHORITY TO BRING DISCIPLINARY CHARGES AGAINST THE PLAINTIFF POLICE OFFICER AND THE PLAINTIFF WAS NOT ENTITLED TO RETIREE BENEFITS SET FORTH IN THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Miller which is far too comprehensive to fairly summarize here. determined plaintiff police officer was properly subjected to disciplinary charges brought by the town and was not entitled to all the retiree benefits set forth in the collective bargaining agreement:

We are called upon in this case to navigate the interplay between various forms of equitable relief grounded in common law doctrine, principles of modern practice under CPLR article 78 and the Municipal Home Rule Law, and certain state-level policies regarding the right to collective bargaining and the authority of public officials over law enforcement. These issues have been raised as a result of the plaintiff’s complaint, the central aim of which is to prevent the plaintiff’s employer from holding him accountable for the serious disciplinary infractions that he allegedly committed in the course of his official duties as a police officer.

Contrary to the plaintiff’s contentions, the equitable powers and legal doctrines that he seeks to invoke in this litigation do not shield him from the consequences of his actions. Murray v Town of N. Castle, 2022 NY Slip Op 00675, Second Dept 2-2-22

 

, ,

DEFENDANT’S AGREEMENT TO PURCHASE PLAINTIFF’S BUSINESS WAS NOT ENTWINED WITH AN EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN PLAINTIFF AND DEFENDANT WHICH INCLUDED A COVENANT NOT TO COMPETE; THEREFORE PLAINTIFF’S ALLEGED BREACH OF THE COVENANT NOT TO COMPETE WAS NOT A DEFENSE TO DEFENDANT’S BREACH OF THE PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined an employment contract between plaintiff and defendant, which included a covenant not to compete, was not entwined with the separate sales agreement in which defendant promised to pay $200,000 for plaintiff’s business. Therefore plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment on the sales contract because defendant defaulted after making the first payment:

“Generally, breach of a related contract will not in the ordinary course defeat summary judgment on [a promissory] note[]” … . Nonetheless, that “rule does not apply where the contract and instrument are intertwined” and inseparable … . Whether two agreements are inextricably intertwined is a question of law for the court to decide because it involves a matter of contract interpretation … .

Here, the sales contract and employment agreement are not inextricably intertwined such that plaintiff’s purported breach of the noncompetition covenants in the latter constitute a defense to defendant’s default on the promissory note … . Saulsbury v Durfee, 2022 NY Slip Op 00566, Fourth Dept 1-28-22

 

,

PLAINTIFF WAS AN EMPLOYEE OF THE CONTRACTOR DEFENDANT HOMEOWNER HIRED TO BUILD A NEW STAIRCASE; PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED BY A PROTRUDING SCREW ON THE NEW STAIRCASE; DEFENDANT WAS NOT LIABLE; THE HOMEOWNER DID NOT CREATE THE CONDITION, DID NOT SUPERVISE THE CONTRACTOR’S WORK, AND DID NOT HAVE NOTICE OF THE CONDITION (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant homeowner was not liable to plaintiff, an employee of the contractor defendant hired to replace a staircase. Plaintiff was injured by a protruding screw attached to the new staircase:

… [D]efendant established prima facie that he did not create the allegedly unsafe condition in the unfinished staircase … . Although defendant testified that he tried to repair the old staircase before hiring the contractor, the uncontradicted evidence showed that the contractor removed the old staircase and that plaintiff was injured on a screw attached to the new staircase. The new staircase was built entirely by the contractor.

… [P]laintiff’s testimony that defendant gave the contractor instructions on where to place the staircase and general instructions on how he wanted the construction to proceed does not, without more, raise a triable issue of fact as to whether defendant created the condition. On the contrary, the mere retention of general supervisory powers over an independent contractor, as opposed to the giving of specific directions on how to do the work, cannot form a basis for the imposition of liability against the principal …

There is … no evidence in the record that defendant had actual or constructive notice of the condition in the unfinished staircase, as the protruding screw was not visible and apparent, nor is there any evidence showing that it existed for a sufficient length of time before the accident to permit defendant to discover and remedy it … . Lara v Kadir, 2022 NY Slip Op 00504, First Dept 1-27-22

 

, ,

THE NUMBER OF FIREFIGHTERS WHICH MUST BE ON DUTY DURING A SHIFT IS A HEALTH AND SAFETY ISSUE, WHICH IS ARBITRABLE PURSUANT TO THE COLLECTIVE BARGANING AGREEMENT, NOT A JOB SECURITY ISSUE (WHICH IS NOT ARBITRABLE) (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the number of firefighters which must be on duty during a shift is not a job-security issue and is therefore arbitrable pursuant to the collective bargaining agreement (CBA):

Respondent contends that Supreme Court erred in concluding that its grievance concerned nonarbitrable job security clauses as the clauses relate only to minimum shift staffing requirements and do not guarantee employment to bargaining unit members during the life of the CBA, a hallmark of a no-layoff job security clause. Respondent further asserts that minimum staffing requirements set forth in … the CBA pertain to health and safety concerns and are properly the subject of arbitration.

… [T]he CBA “does not purport to guarantee a[n] [officer] his or her employment while the CBA is in effect, nor does it prohibit layoffs” … . “It also does not protect officers ‘from abolition of their positions due to budget stringencies'” … . … [T]he CBA only sets forth “minimum staffing on particular shifts” … . Matter of City of Ogdensburg (Ogdensburg Firefighters Assn. Local 1799, A.F.L., C.I.O., I.A.F.F), 2022 NY Slip Op 00237, Third Dept 1-13-22

 

, ,

ALTHOUGH THE DOCTORS WHO TREATED PLAINTIFF IN THE EMERGENCY ROOM WERE NOT EMPLOYED BY THE HOSPITAL, THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THEY HAD APPARENT OR OSTENSIBLE AGENCY RENDERING THE HOSPITAL VICARIOUSLY LIABLE FOR ANY MALPRACTICE COMMITTED BY THEM (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined defendant medical center (Peconic Bay) did not demonstrate it was not vicariously liable for any malpractice committed by  two doctors (Wackett and McMahon) who treated plaintiff in the emergency room. Although neither doctor was employed by Peconic Bay, there was a question of fact whether they had apparent or ostensible agency of Peconic Bay:

… [T]he medical malpractice cause of action asserted against Peconic Bay alleged that the plaintiff twice sought treatment in Peconic Bay’s emergency room and was treated by, among others, Wackett and McMahon. In moving for summary judgment, Peconic Bay established that neither Wackett nor McMahon was its employee. Nevertheless, the evidence submitted in support of its motion for summary judgment was insufficient to demonstrate, prima facie, that the plaintiff entered Peconic Bay’s emergency room seeking treatment from Wackett or McMahon privately rather than from the hospital itself, and thus, that these physicians did not have apparent or ostensible agency of Peconic Bay … . Peconic Bay further failed to eliminate any triable issues of fact as to whether Wackett or McMahon was negligent in his care and treatment of the plaintiff … . Sessa v Peconic Bay Med. Ctr., 2021 NY Slip Op 07570, Second Depty 12-29-21

 

, , ,

DEFENDANT EMPLOYER’S LATE MOTION TO AMEND THE ANSWER IN THIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) ACTION TO ASSERT THAT PLAINTIFF’S EXCLUSIVE REMEDY WAS THE WORKER’S COMPENSATION BENEFITS ALREADY AWARDED SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant employer’s (H&M’s) motion to amend its answer to allege Workers’ Compensation was plaintiff’s sole remedy in this Labor Law 240(1) action should have been granted, despite the lateness of the motion:

H&M’s initial failure to submit the proposed amended pleading (CPLR 3025[b]) was a technical defect that the court should have overlooked (see CPLR 2001), particularly since H&M attached the proposed amendment to its reply … . Plaintiff’s arguments that he was prejudiced by the amendment proposed in H&M’s cross motion, filed about three years after this action was commenced and two years after the workers’ compensation ruling was affirmed, are unavailing … . It is not dispositive that leave to amend was sought a few months after the note of issue was filed … .

The valid and final decision of a panel of the Workers’ Compensation Board, affirming a decision by a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge that was based on a finding that H&M was plaintiff’s employer at the time of the accident, “bars [plaintiff] from relitigating the identical issue in this proceeding”  … . Chen v 111 Mott LLC, 2021 NY Slip Op 07501, First Dept 12-28-21

 

, , ,

ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT THEATER MANAGER WAS NOT A SECURITY GUARD, HIS RESPONSIBILITIES INCLUDED DEALING WITH UNRULY PATRONS AND KEEPING THE PREMISES SAFE; THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER HE WAS ACTING WITHIN THE SCOPE OF HIS EMPLOYMENT WHEN HE THREATENED A PATRON WITH A PELLET GUN; THEREBY RAISING A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE THEATER WAS LIABLE FOR THE MANAGER’S ACTIONS UNDER THE DOCTRINE OF RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the defendant movie- theater manager, Adams, may have been acting within the scope of his employment by the theater, AMC, when he threatened plaintiff, a theater patron, with a pellet gun. Therefore AMC’s motion for summary judgment should not have been granted:

… [T]he general manager of the theater, Adams’s supervisor, stated, during his deposition, that managers, like Adams, have security-related responsibilities, including ensuring that the theater is safe for customers and dealing with unruly patrons. And the plaintiff, during his deposition, stated that he believed Adams was a security guard.

When a business employs security guards or bouncers to maintain order, the use of physical force may be within the scope of their employment … . Adams did not hold either of these job titles, but his responsibilities included maintaining order at the theater, ensuring the safety of customers and staff, and, if necessary, facilitating the removal from the theater of “disruptive or potentially violent” customers. The accomplishment of these ends by means prohibited by the AMC defendants’ policy was not necessarily unforeseeable. … Unquestionably, Adams’s response to the plaintiff and his friends was “in poor judgment” …  and contrary to the AMC defendants’ policy, but “this in itself does not absolve [the AMC] defendants of liability for his acts” … . Norwood v Simon Prop. Group, Inc., 2021 NY Slip Op 07006, Second Dept 12-15-21

 

, , ,

WHEN CONFRONTED WITH AN ARMED SUSPECT, DEFENDANT POLICE OFFICER FIRED HER WEAPON AND STRUCK PLAINTIFF, ANOTHER POLICE OFFICER; THE TWO POLICE OFFICERS, WHO WORKED FOR DIFFERENT MUNICIPALITIES, WERE DEEMED CO-EMPLOYEES PURSUANT TO A POLICE MUTUAL AID AGREEMENT; THEREFORE PLAINTIFF’S NEGLIGENCE ACTION WAS PRECLUDED BY GENERAL OBLIGATONS LAW 11-106 (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined that plaintiff police officer and defendant police were co-employees pursuant a Police Mutual Aid Agreement between two municipalities, the Town of Glenville and the Village of Scotia. Plaintiff, a Glenville police officer, alleged defendant , a Scotia police officer, was negligent in firing her weapon at a suspect, thereby causing a bullet to strike plaintiff. Because the plaintiff and defendant were deemed co-employees pursuant to the agreement, General Obligations Law 11-106 prohibited plaintiff from suing in negligence:

Pursuant to General Obligations Law § 11-106, a police officer may now assert a cause of action sounding in negligence “for injuries suffered while in the line of duty against entities other than municipal employers and fellow workers” … . The issue thus boils down to whether plaintiff and Peck [defendant] were acting as coemployees at the time of the incident, which would bar plaintiff’s action. Based primarily upon the operative provisions of the Agreement, we find that they were coemployees on the night of the incident, thereby insulating defendants from liability. Ferretti v Village of Scotia, 2021 NY Slip Op 06895, Third Dept 12-9-21

 

,

PETITIONER, A PROBATIONARY EMPLOYEE AND THE ONLY FEMALE MANUAL-LABOR EMPLOYEE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS, DEMONSTRATED SHE WAS TERMINATED SOLELY BECAUSE OF HER GENDER; SUPREME COURT PROPERLY REINSTATED HER WITH BACK PAY (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined petitioner, a probationary employee of the Department of Public Works (DPW), was terminated based solely upon her gender and was properly reinstated with back pay:

Despite receiving two interim probationary reports that indicated her performance was satisfactory during the course of her employment, on April 3, 2018, petitioner was called to a meeting with respondent Daniel Crandell, DPW’s Commissioner, at which she was terminated after being told that she was “just not a good fit.” Although petitioner received a written termination letter at the close of that meeting, petitioner received no prior warning or notice of any problematic conduct. Notably, petitioner was the only female employee of DPW that was in a position of manual labor at the time of her termination. * * *

“Judicial review of the discharge of a probationary employee is limited to whether the determination was made in bad faith or for an improper or impermissible reason” … . * * *

Supreme Court found that, “[i]n the absence of any credible evidence that her work performance provided a basis for her termination, [it was] compelled to find that the only reason she was terminated was because of her gender.” Significantly, the court found respondents’ assertions regarding “[p]etitioner’s alleged argumentative attitude” to “reflect more of a post-termination justification for her dismissal than a valid or proper basis for the termination of her employment.” … [R]espondents failed to meet their burden of establishing a legitimate, nondiscriminatory purpose for petitioner’s termination … . Matter of Triumpho v County of Schoharie, 2021 NY Slip Op 06727, Third Dept 12-2-21

 

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