You are here: / Employment Law
, , ,

THE DOCTRINES OF COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL AND RES JUDICATA APPLY TO THE ARBITRATOR’S DETERMINATION THAT PETITIONER DID NOT ABUSE A MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES RECIPIENT, THE CONTRARY SUBSEQUENT DETERMINATION BY AN ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE ANNULLED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing the administrative law judge (ALJ), determined that the doctrines of collateral estoppel and res judicata applied to the original arbitrator’s finding that petitioner, a security assistant employed by the Office of Mental Health (OMH), did not abuse a mental health service recipient. The arbitrator found that the service recipient was the aggressor. The proceedings before the ALJ, which found that petitioner had abused the service recipient, were annulled:

The fundamental point here is that the arbitrator reviewed the underlying event and determined that the service recipient fell to the floor and was the sole aggressor. As such, we conclude that respondent was precluded under principles of res judicata and collateral estoppel from relitigating the question of whether petitioner physically abused the service recipient by pushing her to the floor. It follows that his petition to annul respondent’s determination should be granted and the determination annulled. The matter must be remitted to respondent for amendment of the findings to state that the report is unsubstantiated and for compliance with the requirements of Social Services Law § 494. Matter of Anonymous v New York State Justice Ctr. for the Protection of People With Special Needs, 2019 NY Slip Op 05364, Third Dept 7-3-19

 

, , ,

NEGLIGENT HIRING AND SUPERVISION AND PRIMA FACIE TORT CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, NO ALLEGATION EMPLOYEES WERE ACTING OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF EMPLOYMENT, NO ALLEGATION MALICE WAS DEFENDANT’S SOLE MOTIVATION (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined plaintiff’s negligent hiring and supervision and prima facie tort causes of action should have been dismissed. The lawsuit alleged defendant insurer failed to pay claims for medical care submitted by plaintiff:

“An employer may be liable for a claim of negligent hiring or supervision if an employee commits an independent act of negligence outside the scope of employment and the employer was aware of, or reasonably should have foreseen, the employee’s propensity to commit such an act” … . Here, plaintiff’s cause of action for negligent hiring, supervision or retention is based on the factual allegations that defendant’s employees denied or delayed the payment of claims to plaintiff and sent repetitive verification demands, and that defendant was aware of what its employees were doing and continued to employ them. Plaintiff, however, failed to allege that those acts were committed outside the scope of the employees’ employment. Plaintiff also failed to allege how the employees’ alleged acts of denying claims and sending verification demands constituted acts of negligence. …

“There can be no recovery [for prima facie tort] unless a disinterested malevolence’ to injure [the] plaintiff constitutes the sole motivation for defendant[‘s] otherwise lawful act” … . Here, plaintiff alleged that defendant acted in “bad faith” and intended harm by repeatedly sending plaintiff duplicitous requests for verification forms to be completed. Those conclusory statements in the amended complaint, however, fail to allege “a malicious [act] unmixed with any other and exclusively directed to [the] injury and damage of another” … . Furthermore, it is “[a] critical element of the cause of action . . . that plaintiff suffered specific and measurable loss” … , which “must be alleged with sufficient particularity to identify actual losses and be related causally to the alleged tortious acts” … , but the injuries alleged by plaintiff are “couched in broad and conclusory terms” … , and do not constitute “specific and measurable loss” stated with particularity … . Walden Bailey Chiropractic, P.C. v Geico Cas. Co., 2019 NY Slip Op 05267, Fourth Dept 6-28-19

 

, ,

THE COUNTY IS DISTINCT FROM THE SHERIFF, AND THE SHERIFF IS DISTINCT FROM THE SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT, ONLY THE SHERIFF IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE HIRING AND TRAINING OF SHERIFF’S DEPUTIES, THEREFORE THE INJURED INMATE’S ACTION AGAINST THE COUNTY FOR NEGLIGENT HIRING, TRAINING, SUPERVISION AND RETENTION OF SHERIFF’S DEPUTIES WAS PROPERLY DISMISSED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined the action against the county stemming from the injuries and death suffered by plaintiff’s decedent in the Erie County Holding Center was properly dismissed. The court held that the county is separate from the sheriff’s department, which in turn is separate from the sheriff. The county is not responsible for the hiring and training of sheriff’s deputies, which is only the sheriff’s responsibility. Therefore the negligent hiring, training, supervision and retention cause of action against the county was not viable:

The duty to supervise and train Sheriff’s deputies rests with the Sheriff (… County Law § 652). … [T]he County has no similar duty … . Defendants in this case therefore met their initial burden on the motion by establishing that the County was not liable under the theory stated in plaintiff’s fourth cause of action. …

We reject plaintiff’s … contention that the County’s representation that the Erie County Sheriff’s Department lacked a separate legal identity from the County estops the County from contending that it is not the employer of the Sheriff’s deputies. The County correctly stated that “the Sheriff’s Department does not have a legal identity separate from the County . . . and thus an action against the Sheriff’s Department is, in effect, an action against the County itself”… . The Sheriff, however, is distinct from both the County and the Sheriff’s Department  … and thus the County’s representation has no bearing on whether the Sheriff, as opposed to the County, bears the responsibility of hiring, training, and supervising the Sheriff’s deputies. Metcalf v County of Erie, 2019 NY Slip Op 05265, Fourth Dept 6-28-19

 

, ,

PLAINTIFF’S BREACH-OF-AN-EMPLOYMENT-CONTRACT ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, DESPITE THE FACT THAT DEFENDANT NEVER SIGNED IT (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s breach-of-an-employment-contract action should not have been dismissed. The defendant never signed the contract. However, plaintiff performed and was paid according to the contract. When plaintiff was terminated, defendant refused to pay the six month’s severance which was provided for in the contract:

The fact that defendant never signed the agreement is not, at this pleading stage, an impediment to a finding that the parties intended to be bound … . There is nothing in the agreement stating that it will not be binding until executed by both sides … . The counterparts clause provides that each party may indicate its assent by signing a separate counterpart; it does not state that the parties can assent only by signing. The merger and written amendments clauses provide only that the agreement, and any subsequent amendments, must be in writing; they do not state that the parties may convey their assent only by affixing signatures.

The complaint also sufficiently alleges causes of action for promissory estoppel … and recovery of severance as unpaid wages under Labor Law article 6 … . However, plaintiff fails to sufficiently allege a claim for unjust enrichment as he does not allege he was not paid for the work he actually performed … . Lord v Marilyn Model Mgt., Inc., 2019 NY Slip Op 05093, First Dept 6-25-19

 

, , ,

ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNER HAS A NON-DELEGABLE DUTY TO MAINTAIN THE SIDEWALK WHICH IS NOT DIMINISHED BY HIRING AN INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR TO WORK ON THE SIDEWALK, PROPERTY OWNER’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE PROPERLY DENIED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined defendant abutting property owner’s (Hillman’s) motion for summary judgment in this sidewalk slip and fall case was properly denied. Hillman had hired an independent contractor to do concrete work on the sidewalk, but that did not relieve Hillman of his nondelegable duty to keep the sidewalk in good repair (NYC Administrative Code):

Although the “general rule is that a party who retains an independent contractor . . . is not liable for the independent contractor’s negligent acts,” an exception arises when the hiring party “is under a specific nondelegable duty” … . Here, Hillman, as the property owner, had a nondelegable duty to maintain the sidewalk, including the sidewalk around the subject sign post stump …

Contrary to Hillman’s contention, the motion court did not conclude that Hillman is, in fact, liable for any alleged wrongs committed by the independent contractor in performing cement sidewalk resurfacing work. Rather, the motion court correctly found that under these circumstances the record raises issues of fact as to whether the cement work ordered by this defendant, the property owner, caused or exacerbated a hazardous tripping condition, and whether Hillman had actual or constructive knowledge of the metal protrusion on the sidewalk outside its building. Factual issues are also presented as to whether the condition was open and obvious, or, alternatively the defect trivial … . Vullo v Hillman Hous. Corp., 2019 NY Slip Op 05087, First Dept 6-25-19

 

, , , ,

DEFENDANT RAILROAD’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS FEDERAL EMPLOYERS’ LIABILITY ACT (FELA) ACTION BY A RAILROAD EMPLOYEE WHO WAS ASSAULTED BY A PASSENGER PROPERLY DENIED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined the defendant railroad’s motion for summary judgment in this Federal Employers’ Liability Act (FELA) by a railroad employee assaulted by a passenger was properly denied. The court explained the evidentiary criteria under the FELA:

The Federal Employers’ Liability Act (FELA) (45 USC § 51 et seq.) provides that operators of interstate railroads shall be liable to their employees for on-the-job injuries resulting from the railroad’s negligence. In an action under FELA, “the plaintiff must prove the traditional common-law elements of negligence: duty, breach, damages, causation and foreseeability” … . However, these elements are “substantially relaxed” and “negligence is liberally construed to effectuate the statute’s broadly remedial intended function” … . A claim under FELA “must be determined by the jury if there is any question as to whether employer negligence played a part, however small, in producing plaintiff’s injury” … . “A case is deemed unworthy of submission to a jury only if evidence of negligence is so thin that on a judicial appraisal, the only conclusion that could be drawn is that negligence by the employer could have played no part in an employee’s injury” … .

To establish the element of foreseeability, a plaintiff must show that the defendant had either actual or constructive notice of the defective condition (id.). However, notice generally presents an issue of fact for the jury … . “As with all issues under FELA, the right of the jury to pass on this issue must be liberally construed, with the jury’s power to draw inferences greater than in a common-law action” … .

Under the foregoing relaxed standard, there is sufficient evidence to raise an issue of fact concerning defendant’s actual or constructive notice of a risk of assault to conductors on the New Haven Line. Plaintiff testified that she was previously assaulted by a passenger, and that there was an ongoing problem of physical intimidation by large groups of adolescents refusing to pay their fares, which caused her to fear for her safety. Plaintiff also testified that she has called the MTA’s rail traffic controllers for police assistance at least 250 times to deal with abusive passengers; another conductor was punched in the face and knocked out on the New Haven Line; a passenger attempted to stab and rob another conductor on the Harlem Line. Stephney v MTA Metro-N. R.R., 2019 NY Slip Op 05004, First Dept 6-20-19

 

,

‘LABOR CLASS’ EMPLOYEES ARE NOT ENTITLED TO REINSTATEMENT AFTER A YEAR’S ABSENCE DUE TO ON THE JOB INJURY, CIVIL SERVICE LAW 71 DOES NOT APPLY TO ‘LABOR CLASS’ EMPLOYEES (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, reversing the Appellate Division, determined section 71 of the Civil Service Law, which provides for the reinstatement of an employee after a one-year absence from work due to an injury, did not apply to petitioner (Jordan), a so-called “labor class” employee of the New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA):

Petitioners argue, as they did below, that “employee” is unqualified in the statute and so we should apply that term broadly, consistent with its plain meaning. NYCHA counters that, although “employee” is undefined in the Civil Service Law, section 71 uses terms of art normally not associated with the labor class, including “preferred eligible list” and “grade.” Both are fair points, and therefore to resolve any ambiguity, we turn to the history and the purpose of the statute in resolving this issue.

Our task here is made easier by the fact that we have already articulated section 71’s purpose. Twenty-five years ago, in Allen v Howe, we said that section 71 “w[as] adopted to address the difficult situation created by the prolonged absence of a civil service employee” due to injury (84 NY2d 665, 671 [1994]). Under Civil Service Law § 75, delineated groups of employees “shall not be removed . . . except for incompetency or misconduct after a hearing.” This section left a governmental employer unable to fill a vacancy created by an extended absence due to injury without a “resignation” or the “institut[ion] of disciplinary hearings” (id.). Section 71 was designed to remove the procedural hurdle imposed by section 75 by allowing a “State governmental employer” to terminate an employee without “resort to a disciplinary proceeding” and providing the injured employee a mechanism for later reinstatement (id.).

Including Jordan within the coverage of section 71 would not serve that legislative purpose. As a labor class employee, Jordan was not entitled to a disciplinary hearing before she was terminated and NYCHA did not face the dilemma that led to passage of section 71. Moreover, even if NYCHA was forced to rehire Jordan, she could have been lawfully terminated the next day—”an absurd result that would frustrate the statutory purpose” … . Therefore, we hold that NYCHA did not violate Section 71 when it refused to reinstate Jordan. Matter of Jordan v New York City Hous. Auth., 2019 NY Slip Op 04756, CtApp 5-13-19

 

, , ,

DEFENDANT SCHOOL DISTRICT WAS NOT A PARTY TO THE LONG-TERM DISABILITY INSURANCE CONTRACT WHICH COVERED PLAINTIFF, A SCHOOL DISTRICT EMPLOYEE WHO WAS INJURED ON THE JOB; THEREFORE THE SCHOOL DISTRICT COULD NOT BE SUED BY THE EMPLOYEE AFTER THE INSURER CUT OFF BENEFITS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined that plaintiff, a security guard for the School District who was injured on the job, did not have a cause of action against District based upon the long-term disability insurer’s (Sun Life’s) decision to terminate her disability benefits. The District was not a party to the contract between Sun Life and the policyholder. Although the Summary Plan Description issued by Sun Life’s predecessor mentioned the insured rights under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), the District was not obligated by the Summary-Plan language:

… [T]he plaintiff contends that, based on the language of portions of the Summary Plan Description, the District subjected itself to ERISA’s statutory scheme governing appeals from denials of claims. …

An insurance policy is a contract to which standard provisions of contract interpretation apply … . “Liability for breach of contract does not lie absent proof of a contractual relationship or privity between the parties”… . “One cannot be held liable under a contract to which he or she is not a party” … .

Here, the District was not a party to the long-term disability policy issued by Sun Life to a different named policyholder. Even assuming the authenticity of the Summary Plan Description excerpts relied upon by the plaintiff, nothing in the record reflects that the District authored, published, or agreed to be bound by the Summary Plan Description, which, by its terms, did not form part of the insurance policy. Nor do the terms of the insurance policy incorporate the provisions of ERISA … . Arroyo v Central Islip UFSD, 2019 NY Slip Op 04669, Second Dept 6-12-19

 

, , , , ,

SCHOOL EMPLOYEE’S NEGLIGENCE ACTION AGAINST THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION IS NOT GOVERNED BY THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT (CBA), NO NEED TO EXHAUST ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES; DENIAL OF MEDICAL LEAVE DID NOT HAVE RES JUDICATA OR COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL EFFECT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined an employee’s personal injury complaint against the NYC Department of Education (DOE), stemming from an elevator accident, should not have been dismissed. The plaintiff-employee first applied to the DOE for line of duty injury paid medical leave pursuant to the collective bargaining agreement (CBA) and was denied. Plaintiff then commenced the personal injury action. The DOE argued that plaintiff had failed to exhaust the administrative remedies required by the CBA and, in the alternative, the denial of the line of duty pay should be given res judicata or collateral estoppel effect. Supreme Court decided plaintiff had failed to exhaust the administrative remedies. The Second Department held that her injury and the resulting negligence action were not covered by the CBA:

An employee covered by a collective bargaining agreement which provides for a grievance procedure must exhaust administrative remedies prior to seeking judicial remedies … or face dismissal of the action …. Here, however, the plaintiff seeks to recover damages against the defendants for pain and suffering based upon a negligence theory of liability which is outside the scope of, and is not governed by, the CBA’s “line of duty injury” paid leave grievance provisions… . There is no need to exhaust administrative remedies when the cause of action by the plaintiff is not governed by the CBA … .

The defendants’ contention that dismissal is also warranted on the basis of collateral estoppel and res judicata is without merit … . Collateral estoppel is inapplicable, as the defendants failed to demonstrate that the issue that the plaintiff seeks to pursue here was necessarily decided by the DOE when it denied the plaintiff’s “line of duty injury” paid leave application … . Likewise, the doctrine of res judicata, or claim preclusion, also is inapplicable to the plaintiff’s complaint because the relief she seeks could not have been awarded within the context of the prior administrative proceeding … . Shortt v City of New York, 2019 NY Slip Op 04745, Second Dept 6-12-19

 

, ,

PLAINTIFF FELL THROUGH AN INADEQUATELY PROTECTED HOLE IN DEFENDANT’S BUILDING WHEN HE (APPARENTLY) WAS DOING WORK ON BEHALF OF HIS EMPLOYER, APPARENTLY A TENANT IN THE BUILDING; PLAINTIFF SHOULD HAVE BEEN AWARDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST THE BUILDING OWNER; BUT PLAINTIFF PRESENTED NO PROOF HIS EMPLOYER HAD ASSUMED THE DUTIES OF AN AGENT OF THE OWNER FOR SUPERVISION OF HIS WORK, THEREFORE SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240 (1) ACTION AGAINST THE EMPLOYER WAS PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined that plaintiff’s Labor Law 240 (1) cause of action against the building owner should have been granted, but his Labor Law 240 (1) cause of action against his employer, Bright Way, was properly denied because plaintiff presented no proof Bight Way acted as the owner’s agent. Apparently Bright Way occupies the owner’s building. Plaintiff is a salesman for Bright Way. Plaintiff was instructed to run a thermostat wire on the second floor of the building when he fell 15 feet through an inadequately protected hole:

Labor Law § 240(1) “imposes liability only on contractors, owners or their agents” (…see Labor Law § 240[1]). “An agency relationship for purposes of section 240(1) arises only when work is delegated to a third party who obtains the authority to supervise and control the job”… . “Where the owner or general contractor delegates to a third party the duty to conform to the requirements of the Labor Law, that third party becomes the statutory agent of the owner or general contractor” … . “The key question is whether the defendant had the right to insist that proper safety practices were followed” … . “[U]nless a defendant has supervisory control and authority over the work being done when the plaintiff is injured, there is no statutory agency conferring liability under the Labor Law” … .

Here, the plaintiff’s evidence failed to establish, prima facie, that Bright Way was an agent of the property owner or one of its contractors at the site. The evidence proffered by the plaintiff in support of his motion did not establish that Bright Way had been delegated the “duty to conform to the requirements of the Labor Law”… , that Bright Way “had the right to insist that proper safety practices were followed” at the construction site … , that Bright Way had “broad responsibility” to coordinate and supervise “all the work being performed on the job site” … , or that Bright Way had requested or been granted authority by the owner or contractor to supervise and control the work in the area where the accident occurred … . Yiming Zhou v 828 Hamilton, Inc., 2019 NY Slip Op 04752, Second Dept 6-12-19

 

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