You are here: / Employment Law
, ,

QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER THE EMPLOYEE WAS DRIVING THE EMPLOYER’S TRUCK WITH THE EMPLOYER’S PERMISSION AND WHETHER THE EMPLOYEE WAS ACTING WITHIN THE SCOPE OF HIS EMPLOYMENT WHEN THE TRAFFIC ACCIDENT OCCURRED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined plaintiff’s vicarious liability causes of action against the employer of the driver of a company truck which struck plaintiff’s car head-on properly survived summary judgment. The driver, Price, was intoxicated and was convicted of vehicular assault. The employer argued that, because of the company policy prohibiting employees from using drugs and alcohol, Price did not have permission to operate the truck within the meaning of Vehicle and Traffic Law 388. The employer further argued Price was not acting within the scope of his employment when the accident occurred. The court found there were questions of fact on both issues:

… [T]he requirement to drive sober relates more closely to the manner of operation, or how to drive, rather than a restriction on who may operate the vehicle and when and where they may do so … . As defendants did not establish, as a matter of law, that Price was driving without permission at the time of the accident, they were not entitled to summary judgment on the Vehicle and Traffic Law § 388 claim … . …

Price testified that [his employer] gave him a vehicle to use for business purposes, including traveling from home to work, and at the time of the accident he was driving to a job site to begin work for the day. [The employer] arguably derived a benefit from Price’s ability to take the vehicle home because the truck contained a tool box for work tools, he used the truck to transport supplies to job sites from home improvement stores, the truck advertised the business by displaying the company name and logo, and he worked at construction job sites rather than a main office, so permitting him to take the vehicle home saved him from having to use work time to pick the company truck up and drop it off at a central location each day … . Based on this evidence, defendants failed to establish their entitlement to summary judgment, as there was a factual question regarding whether Price was acting within the scope of his employment at the time of the accident … . Williams v J. Luke Constr. Co., LLC, 2019 NY Slip Op 03431, Third Dept 5-2-19

 

, ,

PURSUANT TO MILITARY LAW, PETITIONER SHOULD HAVE BEEN DEEMED TO HAVE SUCCESSFULLY COMPLETED HER NYC POLICE-OFFICER PROBATIONARY PERIOD BY VIRTUE OF HER DEPLOYMENT ON MILITARY DUTY DURING THE PROBATIONARY PERIOD (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that Military Law controlled and petitioner, a probationary NYC police officer, must be deemed to have satisfactorily completed her probation by virtue of her military deployment while on probationary status:

Under New York City personnel rules, “[s]ubject to the provisions of the [M]ilitary [L]aw,” the computation of a probationary period is based on time the employee is “on the job in a pay status” (55 RCNY 5.2.2[b]). The personnel rules further provide that, notwithstanding rule 5.2.2, the probationary period will be extended while a probationer “does not perform the duties of the position” (55 RCNY 5.2.8[b]) for instance, while on limited duty status … . These rules are expressly subject to Military Law § 243(9), which provides, in pertinent part, that if a probationary employee is deployed on military duty before the expiration of his or her probationary period, “the time [she] is absent on military duty shall be credited as satisfactory service during such probationary period.”

Military Law § 243(9) is unambiguous in providing that respondents are required to credit the period that probationary officers spend in military service as “satisfactory service” towards completion of the probationary period. The statute does not distinguish between probationers on restricted or modified duty and those on full duty status at the time of deployment, or give respondents discretion to distinguish between types of probationers … . Matter of Aroca v Bratton, 2019 NY Slip Op 03277, First Dept 4-30-19

​

, , ,

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR’S INTERPRETATION OF A WAGE ORDER WHICH ALLOWED 24-HOUR LIVE-IN HOME HEALTH CARE AIDES TO BE PAID FOR 13 HOURS WAS NOT IRRATIONAL OR UNREASONABLE, APPELLATE DIVISION REVERSED, MATTER REMITTED FOR CONSIDERATION OF OTHER GROUNDS FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Rivera, over a two-judge dissent, reversing the Appellate Division, determined that the Department of Labor’s interpretation of a minimum wage order applicable to home health aides was not irrational or unreasonable. The matter was sent back for consideration of other grounds for class certification:

The common issue presented in these joint appeals is whether, pursuant to the New York State Department of Labor’s (DOL) Miscellaneous Industries and Occupations Minimum Wage Order (Wage Order), an employer must pay its home health care aide employees for each hour of a 24-hour shift. DOL has interpreted its Wage Order to require payment for at least 13 hours of a 24-hour shift if the employee is allowed a sleep break of at least 8 hours—and actually receives five hours of uninterrupted sleep—and three hours of meal break time. DOL’s interpretation of its Wage Order does not conflict with the promulgated language, nor has DOL adopted an irrational or unreasonable construction, and so the Appellate Division erred in rejecting that interpretation. Therefore, we reverse the Appellate Division orders and remit for consideration of alternative grounds for class certification for alleged violations of New York’s Labor Law, inclusive of defendants’ alleged systematic denial of wages earned and due, unaddressed by the courts below because of their erroneous rejection of DOL’s interpretation. Andryeyeva v New York Health Care, Inc., 2019 NY Slip Op 02258, CtApp 3-26-19

 

​

, , ,

DEFENDANT WAS NOT AN ALTER EGO OF PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYER, PLAINTIFF WAS NOT DEFENDANT’S SPECIAL EMPLOYEE, PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION BASED UPON THE ALLEGATION THE LADDER MOVED FOR NO APPARENT REASON, NOTWITHSTANDING EVIDENCE PLAINTIFF MAY HAVE SAID HE PLACED THE LADDER ON A DROP CLOTH (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, modifying Supreme Court, determined defendant’s affirmative defenses alleging it was an alter ego of plaintiff’s employer and plaintiff was its special employee, thereby insulating defendant from anything other than liability under the Workers’ Compensation Law, should have been dismissed. Summary judgment was properly awarded to plaintiff on his Labor Law 240 (1) cause of action. Plaintiff alleged the ladder he was on moved for no apparent reason. The fact that plaintiff apparently told a co-worker that he set the ladder on a drop cloth merely raised a question of his contributory negligence, which is not a defense to a Labor Law 240 (1) action:

“Labor Law § 240(1) imposes a nondelegable duty upon owners and general contractors to provide safety devices to protect workers from elevation-related risks” … . The sole proximate cause defense applies where the plaintiff, acting as a “recalcitrant worker,” misused an otherwise proper safety device, chose to use an inadequate safety device when proper devices were readily available, or failed to use any device when proper devices were available … . Contributory negligence on the part of the worker is not a defense to a Labor Law § 240(1) cause of action … .

Here, the plaintiff made a prima facie showing of entitlement to  … judgment as a matter of law on the issue of liability on the Labor Law § 240(1) cause of action, by submitting evidence that the ladder on which he was standing moved for no apparent reason, causing him to fall … . In opposition to the plaintiff’s prima facie showing, the defendant failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the plaintiff’s own acts or omissions were the sole proximate cause of his injuries … . Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the deposition testimony of the plaintiff’s coworker implying that, after the accident, the plaintiff might have told the coworker that the plaintiff had set the ladder up on top of a drop cloth, even if true, would render the plaintiff only contributorily negligent, a defense not available under Labor Law § 240(1) … . Salinas v 64 Jefferson Apts., LLC, 2019 NY Slip Op 02370, Second Dept 3-27-19

 

, ,

EVEN WHERE A CAUSE OF ACTION HAS NOT BEEN PROPERLY PLED THE COURT WILL SEARCH THE RECORD TO DETERMINE WHETHER THERE IS AN ACTIONABLE CLAIM IN RESPONSE TO A DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, HERE IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE THERE WAS NO EVIDENTIARY SUPPORT FOR CERTAIN CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST THE BUILDING OWNER (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department noted that, even where a cause of action is not properly pled, on a motion for summary judgment it must search the record to determine whether there is an actionable claim. In this slip and fall case, the building owner was defendant 90 Merrick and the employer of the janitor who allegedly mopped the floor where plaintiff fell was defendant ABM. The First Department held that the 90 Merrick’s motion for summary judgment should have been granted:

The complaint’s allegations that defendants were negligent in their ownership, operation, control and maintenance of the premises by causing or allowing a dangerous condition on the floor gave no indication that plaintiff’s theories of liability would include 90 Merrick’s negligent retention of ABM or its vicarious liability for ABM’s independent contractor’s negligence in performing its duties under the contract … . Notwithstanding, a motion for summary judgment must be denied if there are issues of fact as to an actionable claim, even if the claim was not properly pleaded … , and we find that there are no factual issues as to whether ABM was an independent contractor — it was — when the accident happened. The deposition testimony elicited from nonparty CLK Commercial Management, LLC’s employee, John S. Burke, the property manager for the building at the time of the accident, and ABM’s manager, Victor Orellana, whose duties at the time of the accident included making sure the building was kept clean, shows that 90 Merrick did not direct, supervise or control ABM’s work and that an ABM employee had responsibility for supervising and inspecting the work performed by ABM’s employees, which comports with the duties and obligations as set forth in defendants’ contract … . Burgdoerfer v CLK/HP 90 Merrick LLC, 2019 NY Slip Op 01532, First Dept 3-5-19

 

, , ,

PLAINTIFF, A PASSENGER ON A MOTORCYCLE, WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT AGAINST THE VAN DRIVER AND THE EMPLOYER OF THE VAN DRIVER WHO MADE A LEFT TURN INTO THE MOTORCYCLE’S PATH, THE GRAVES AMENDMENT MAY APPLY TO THE LESSOR OF THE VAN, PLAINTIFF DID NOT HAVE TO DEMONSTRATE SERIOUS INJURY AS SHE WAS NOT A COVERED PERSON UNDER THE NO-FAULT INSURANCE LAW (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department addressed several issues in this motorcycle-vehicle accident case. Plaintiff was a passenger on a motorcycle that collided with a van which attempted to make a left turn across the motorcycle’s path. The court held: (1) plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment against the van driver who violated Vehicle and Traffic Law 1146 and 1126 in making the turn; (2) the van driver’s employer was vicariously liable because the driver was operating the van during the course of his employment, the employer leased the van for more than 30 days and therefore was the owner of the van under Vehicle and Traffic Law 388; (3) the Graves Amendment may insulate the lessor of the van from liability; (4) plaintiff was not a covered person under the no fault provisions of the Insurance Law and therefore did not have to demonstrate serious injury before bringing suit. Jung v Glover, 2019 NY Slip Op 01066, Second Dept 2-13-19

 

​

,

TEACHER ACQUIRED TENURE BY ESTOPPEL (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined petitioner, a special education teacher, acquired tenure by estoppel:

“Tenure may be acquired by estoppel when a school board accepts the continued services of a teacher or administrator, but fails to take the action required by law to either grant or deny tenure prior to the expiration of the teacher’s probationary term” … . Here, petitioner obtained tenure by estoppel when she continued to be employed by the DOE and failed to receive any notice regarding the DOE’s decision regarding her future by the expiration of her probationary period … . In addition, the DOE failed to indicate to petitioner that the temporary assignment to perform clerical duties for the Committee on Special Education would not count toward her probationary period. Thus, petitioner’s decision to accept the temporary reassignment did not “serve to disrupt that teacher’s probationary period, nor . . . lead to an increase in the length of that probationary period” … . Matter of Wilson v Department of Educ. of the City of N.Y., 2019 NY Slip Op 01161, First Dept 2-14-19

 

,

PLAINTIFF WAS DEFENDANT’S SPECIAL EMPLOYEE WHEN INJURED, PLAINTIFF’S SOLE REMEDY IS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that defendant demonstrated plaintiff was its special employee. Therefore plaintiff’s sole remedy for his on the job injury is workers’ compensation:

It is well settled that “a general employee of one employer may also be in the special employ of another, notwithstanding the general employer’s responsibility for payment of wages and for maintaining workers’ compensation and other employee benefits” … . “[A] person’s categorization as a special employee is usually a question of fact”; however, a “determination of special employment status may be made as a matter of law where the particular, undisputed critical facts compel that conclusion and present no triable issue of fact” … . Here, defendant demonstrated that it exercised “complete and exclusive control over the manner, details and ultimate results of plaintiff’s work” … ; that Remedy [plaintiff’s usual employer] “was not present at the job site and had no right to direct, supervise or control plaintiff’s work’’ … ; that defendant provided plaintiff with all the training and materials necessary for plaintiff to perform his job … ; and that defendant “had the authority to fire plaintiff with respect to his employment at its job site” … . Ferguson v National Gypsum Servs. Co., 2019 NY Slip Op 00709, Fourth Dept 2-1-19

,

PLAINTIFF’S HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined that plaintiff’s hostile work environment cause of action should not have been dismissed. Plaintiff alleged employment discrimination pursuant to the New York State and New York City Human Rights Law (HRL):

Plaintiff submitted evidence that his supervisors repeatedly made racially derogatory comments, including calling him “Bubbles,” which he testified was a reference to Michael Jackson’s pet chimpanzee, and referring to him as “boy” using a Southern accent. Plaintiff also asserts that he was told that he was “too old for the job,” that he worked like he “just came back from surgery,” and that he had “too many worker’s comp cases and . . . should resign.” According to plaintiff, the supervisors’ comments were continuous in nature and occurred on a regular basis. This evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to plaintiff, raises issues of fact as to whether plaintiff was subjected to a hostile work environment based on race, age and disability under both the State and City HRLs … . Sims v Trustees of Columbia Univ. in the City of N.Y., 2019 NY Slip Op 00672, First Dept 1-31-19

 

, , ,

CITY’S POTENTIAL LIABILITY FOR THE ACTIONS OF A CITY BUS DRIVER WAS BASED ON RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR, THEREFORE A NEGLIGENT HIRING AND RETENTION ACTION WAS NOT VIABLE AND THE DRIVER’S PERSONNEL FILE WAS NOT DISCOVERABLE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the city’s motion to vacate the order compelling disclosure of the city bus driver’s personnel file should have been granted. Plaintiff alleged she was injured when she fell on a city bus. The city acknowledged that the driver was acting within the scope of his employment when the accident occurred. Therefore the city’s potential liability was based upon respondeat superior, and a negligent hiring and retention action was not viable. Therefore the personnel records were not discoverable:

“Generally, where an employee is acting within the scope of his or her employment, the employer is liable for the employee’s negligence under a theory of respondeat superior, and a plaintiff may not proceed with a cause of action to recover damages for negligent hiring and retention”… . In light of the defendants’ formal concession that the bus driver was acting within the scope of his employment when the accident occurred, the personnel records of the bus driver are not discoverable… . Furthermore, the plaintiff failed to show any other basis to justify granting her request for the personnel records, as “any prior acts of carelessness or incompetence of the defendant’s employee would not be admissible at trial” … . Therefore, the additional discovery sought by the plaintiff is not relevant or reasonably calculated to lead to evidence relevant to the issue of the driver’s alleged negligence … . Trotman v New York City Tr. Auth., 2019 NY Slip Op 00631, Second Dept 1-30-19

 

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