, ,

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

 

, ,

ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF’S HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT ALLEGATIONS DID NOT STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION UNDER THE APPLICABLE NEW YORK STATE HUMAN RIGHTS LAW PROVISIONS, THE ALLEGATIONS DID STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION UNDER THE MORE PROTECTIVE NEW YORK CITY HUMAN RIGHTS LAW (CT APP).

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the complaint stated a hostile work environment cause of action under the more protective New York City Human Rights Law, but not under the New York State Human Rights Law:

… [A]lthough the motion court properly concluded that it does not rise to the level of “severe and pervasive” under the applicable pre-2019 State HRL, plaintiff has raised triable issues of fact regarding the hostile work environment claims under the more protective City HRL … . There was evidence that in May and September 2015, several of plaintiff’s coworkers referred to him by using the Spanish word for “monkey,” a racially humiliating and degrading term. Further, the evidence suggested that other coworkers and supervisors, if not everyone at the restaurant, knew that certain employees were using that term to refer to plaintiff … . Under these circumstances, triable issues exist as to whether this rises above the level of a “truly insubstantial” case … . The evidence also raised triable issues as to whether plaintiff was treated differently from other employees of his ethnic background because of his skin color … .

… [T]riable issues of fact exist as to whether defendant was liable for the comments of its workers, and whether defendant took “immediate and appropriate corrective action” to prevent the conduct … . Pichardo v Carmine’s Broadway Feast Inc, 2021 NY Slip Op 06565, First Dept 11-23-21

 

, ,

THE PROFESSIONAL EMPLOYEE AGREEMENT, WHICH PROVIDED FOR THE SHARING OF CONTINGENCY FEES FOR CASES RETAINED BY AN ATTORNEY WHO LEAVES THE FIRM, DID NOT VIOLATE ETHICS RULES AND SHOULD HAVE BEEN ENFORCED (FOURTH DEPT). ​

The Fourth Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the Professional Employee Agreement (Agreement), which provided for sharing contingency fees for cases retained by an attorney leaving the firm, did not violate ethics rules and should have been enforced:

… [T]he Agreement did not violate rule 1.5 (g) of the Rules of Professional Conduct (22 NYCRR 1200.0) inasmuch as that rule “does not prohibit payment to a lawyer formerly associated in a law firm pursuant to a separation or retirement agreement” (Rules of Professional Conduct [22 NYCRR 1200.0] rule 1.5 [h] … ) . Here, the Agreement at issue is not a fee-splitting agreement under Rule 1.5 (g) but, rather, an employment or separation agreement under Rule 1.5 (h). Such employment or separation agreements “should be construed, wherever possible, in favor of [their] legality” … and where, as here, they are clear and unambiguous on their face, they must be ” ‘enforced according to the plain meaning of [their] terms’ ” … .

… [T]he Agreement did not violate rule 5.6 (a) of the Rules of Professional Conduct (22 NYCRR 1200.0 … ). Although the Agreement did have some financial disincentives for respondents to continue working on the cases that were transferred from petitioner, “agreements involving financial disincentives are not per se illegal”  … [W]e conclude that the terms of the Agreement relating to the division of contingency fee awards did not have the effect of “improperly deter[ring] competition” … . Matter of Mattar v Hall, 2021 NY Slip Op 06477, Fourth Dept 11-19-21

 

, ,

PLAINTIFFS WERE ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THEIR MINIMUM WAGE, OVERTIME PAY, SPREAD-OF-HOURS PAY AND WAGE THEFT PREVENTION ACT CAUSES OF ACTION, INCLUDING LIQUIDATED DAMAGES, PREJUDGMENT INTEREST AND ATTORNEYS’ FEES (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the motion court should not have denied plaintiff’s summary judgment motion and, sua sponte, dismissed the complaint in this action alleging “violations of minimum wage, overtime pay and spread-of-hours pay under the Labor Law and violations of the Wage Theft Prevention Act (WTPA) …” . The First Department granted plaintiffs’ summary judgment motion, finding them entitled to liquidated damages, prejudgment interest and attorneys’ fees:

Plaintiffs established prima facie that defendants violated Labor Law §§ 190-199, 650, and 652 and 12 NYCRR 142 and 146-1.6 by failing to pay them minimum wage, overtime pay, and spread-of-hours pay. Although 12 NYCRR 142-2.2 requires an employer to pay an employee for overtime, i.e., working time over 40 hours, at a wage rate of 1½ times the employee’s regular rate, defendant Georgios Liristis, owner of defendant GE & LO Corp. d/b/a Burger Hut, testified that plaintiffs each worked 8- to 10-hour shifts, six days a week, and were paid a fixed salary. Although 12 NYCRR 142-2.4(a) requires that, for any day in which an employee’s spread of hours exceeds 10 hours, the employee receive one hour’s pay at the minimum wage rate in addition to the minimum wage, the record shows that plaintiff Galindo Tezoco, who regularly worked shifts over 10 hours, did not receive the additional hours’ pay.

Defendant Liristis’ testimony establishes that defendants failed to pay three of the five plaintiffs the prevailing minimum wage during the relevant periods. Defendants cannot avail themselves of the “tip credit,” since they undisputedly failed to provide notice of the tip credit in writing … .

Plaintiffs established that defendants violated the WTPA by failing to provide them with wage statements (see Labor Law § 195[3]) and by failing to provide wage notices to plaintiff Silverio Tezoco … . It is undisputed that defendants failed to provide any wage notices or wage statements during the course of plaintiffs’ employment. Tezoco v GE & LO Corp., 2021 NY Slip Op 06463, First Dept 11-18-21

 

,

PLAINTIFF, A LANDSCAPING CONTRACTOR, DID YARD WORK FOR DEFENDANT HOMEOWNER, INCLUDING SPREADING MULCH AND USING HIS OWN LADDER TO TRIM A TREE; PLAINTIFF POSITIONED THE LADDER ON THE MULCH; THE LADDER FELL OVER WHEN PLAINTIFF WAS STANDING ON IT; DEFENDANT HOMEOWNER DID NOT CREATE OR HAVE NOTICE OF THE DANGEROUS CONDITION (THE MULCH) AND DID NOT SUPERVISE OR DIRECT PLAINTIFF’S TREE-TRIMMING WORK; DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined defendant homeowner’s motion for summary judgment in this ladder-fall case should have been granted. Plaintiff alleged defendant asked him to trim some tree branches. Plaintiff placed his own ladder on mulch which he (plaintiff) had spread there as part of his landscaping work. Plaintiff alleged the mulch constituted a dangerous condition which caused the ladder to tip. Plaintiff also alleged the owner exercised supervision and control over his work and was liable for directing him to trim the tree:

Even assuming that defendant had a conversation with plaintiff, the request to trim the trees was a general instruction about what needed to be done without any direction about how to perform the task … . It is undisputed that defendant neither provided any equipment for the project nor directed the manner in which the ladder was placed or the trimming performed … . …

As to the dangerous condition theory of liability, … defendant did not create the hazard, as it is undisputed that plaintiff and his associates were the ones who spread the mulch and placed the ladder … . Nor is there any evidence that defendant had actual or constructive notice of the allegedly dangerous condition. Defendant was not shown to have expertise in landscaping and, even if he was inside the house when the ladder was being set up on the mulch, this general awareness would be insufficient to establish notice of an unsafe condition … . Vickers v Parcells, 2021 NY Slip Op 05762, Third Dept 10-21-21