You are here: / Employment Law
, ,

BUILDING INSPECTOR WAS PROPERLY TERMINATED FOR FAILURE TO REQUIRE ASBESTOS ABATEMENT FOR A DEMOLISHED BUILDING, BECAUSE THE ACTIONS OF THE INSPECTOR CONSTITUTED CRIMES UNDER THE ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION LAW AND PENAL LAW, THE EMPLOYMENT-RELATED CHARGES WERE TIMELY (THIRD DEPT). ​

The Third Department determined that petitioner, formerly a village building inspector, was properly terminated for failing to require asbestos abatement for a demolished building. Because the allegations constituted crimes pursuant to the Environmental Conservation Law (ECL) the charges were not time-barred. The evidence was deemed sufficient to support the charges:

Petitioner’s primary contention on appeal is that the charge should have been dismissed as untimely. Indeed, “no removal or disciplinary proceeding shall be commenced more than eighteen months after the occurrence of the alleged incompetency or misconduct complained of and described in the charges” (Civil Service Law § 75 [4… . However, this limitations period does not apply “where the incompetency or misconduct complained of and described in the charges would, if proved in a court of appropriate jurisdiction, constitute a crime” … . …

… [P]etitioner is alleged to have “knowingly, unlawfully and intentionally engage[d] persons to effect the unauthorized demolition of the [building], knowing that unabated asbestos was located therein or thereupon, causing the release of a substance hazardous to public health, safety or the environment, said substance being asbestos.” If proven, these allegations would constitute the crime of endangering public health, safety or the environment in the fourth degree (see ECL 71-2711 [3]). As to count 9, petitioner is alleged, with regard to the demolition of the building, to have “engag[ed] persons neither certified nor qualified to abate the asbestos located therein, . . . knowing that asbestos was located therein, such demolition having been performed without asbestos abatement or any reasonable procedure to prevent the release of asbestos into the public air, . . . [and] having released a considerable amount of [asbestos] dust and debris into the air” in a populated area. These allegations would, if proven at trial, constitute the crime of criminal nuisance in the second degree (see Penal Law § 240.45 [1]). Likewise, we find that the allegations against petitioner as detailed in counts 5 through 7 would constitute, if established at trial, official misconduct (see Penal Law § 195.00 [2] …). Accordingly, the Hearing Officer properly found that the charge is not time-barred … . …

At the hearing, petitioner admitted that he was aware that the demolition of the building not only began without the requisite permits, but that the contractors hired to complete the job agreed to do so for only $5,000 — rather than an estimated $150,000 — in exchange for future contracts. It is further undisputed that the demolition resulted in the release of asbestos fibers where workers and passersby would be exposed to the legislatively-recognized carcinogenic agent… . As to the quantity of asbestos released, a report conducted more than a year prior to the building’s demolition found varying percentages of asbestos in the building’s products — from 1.4% to 23.5% — far exceeding the 1% threshold necessary to trigger abatement requirements … . Petitioner testified that, although he was aware that the building contained asbestos and had discussed this report with respondent’s civil engineer, John Fuller, he had not read the report and “assumed” that the quantity of asbestos present did not require abatement. When asked why he did not investigate the issue of abatement further in his role as respondent’s Code Enforcement Officer, he stated that he “had no obligation” to do so. Further, the Hearing Officer credited the testimony of Chief of Police Robert Mir that petitioner had told one of the demolition contractors, Sam Kearney, that he was “good to go” in response to concerns about whether asbestos was present in the building. Marciano Soto, a contractor hired to supervise the demolition of the building, similarly testified that petitioner told him on multiple occasions that the building did not contain asbestos. Upon our review, we find substantial evidence in the record to sustain the charge that petitioner “committ[ed] acts constituting crimes” — namely, endangering public health, safety or the environment in the fourth degree, official misconduct and criminal nuisance in the second degree — and, thus, to support the determination terminating petitioner’s employment … . Matter of Snowden v Village of Monticello, 2018 NY Slip Op 08226, Third Dept 11-29-18

MUNICIPAL LAW (EMPLOYMENT LAW, BUILDING INSPECTOR WAS PROPERLY TERMINATED FOR FAILURE TO REQUIRE ASBESTOS ABATEMENT FOR A DEMOLISHED BUILDING, BECAUSE THE ACTIONS OF THE INSPECTOR CONSTITUTED CRIMES UNDER THE ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION LAW, THE EMPLOYMENT-RELATED CHARGES WERE TIMELY (THIRD DEPT))/EMPLOYMENT LAW (ENVIRONMENTAL LAW, MUNICIPAL LAW, BUILDING INSPECTOR WAS PROPERLY TERMINATED FOR FAILURE TO REQUIRE ASBESTOS ABATEMENT FOR A DEMOLISHED BUILDING, BECAUSE THE ACTIONS OF THE INSPECTOR CONSTITUTED CRIMES UNDER THE ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION LAW, THE EMPLOYMENT-RELATED CHARGES WERE TIMELY (THIRD DEPT))/ENVIRONMENTAL LAW (MUNICIPAL LAW, EMPLOYMENT LAW, BUILDING INSPECTOR WAS PROPERLY TERMINATED FOR FAILURE TO REQUIRE ASBESTOS ABATEMENT FOR A DEMOLISHED BUILDING, BECAUSE THE ACTIONS OF THE INSPECTOR CONSTITUTED CRIMES UNDER THE ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION LAW, THE EMPLOYMENT-RELATED CHARGES WERE TIMELY (THIRD DEPT))

, , ,

COMPLAINANT’S ACTUAL EMPLOYER WAS ADDED TO THE EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION PROCEEDING MORE THAN ONE YEAR AFTER TERMINATION, THE RELATION-BACK DOCTRINE DID NOT APPLY, DISCRIMINATION FINDING ANNULLED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, annulling the employment discrimination determination, held that the action against the employer, Food Corp., was untimely and the relation-back doctrine did not apply. Complainant had originally named Trade Fair as her employer and then added Food Corp. more than a year after her termination:

Food Corp. does not dispute that the first prong of the relation-back test was satisfied, because the claims against Food Corp. arose out of the same transactions or occurrences as those asserted against Trade Fair. The complainant also established the third prong of the test by presenting evidence suggesting that Food Corp. had notice of the proceeding before the statute of limitations expired, and that Food Corp. should have known that, but for the complainant’s mistake in omitting it as a respondent in her complaint, the proceeding would have been timely commenced against it as well.

However, the complainant failed to satisfy the second prong of the relation-back test, because Food Corp. and Trade Fair were not united in interest. Respondents are “united in interest only when their interest in the subject-matter [of the proceeding] is such that [the respondents] stand or fall together and that judgment against one will similarly affect the other'” … . “[T]he question of unity of interest is to be determined from an examination of (1) the jural relationship of the parties whose interests are said to be united and (2) the nature of the claim asserted against them by the [complainant]” … . Respondents are not united in interest if there is a possibility that the new party could have a defense different from that of the original party … . Here, the Commissioner dismissed the second amended complaint insofar as asserted against Trade Fair on the grounds that the complainant never interacted with or took direction from Trade Fair’s employees, and that Trade Fair was not the complainant’s employer. In contrast, the Commissioner determined that Food Corp. was the complainant’s employer because Food Corp.’s personnel hired and fired the complainant and controlled the complainant’s daily workplace activities. Thus, the record makes clear that Food Corp.’s and Trade Fair’s interests in the administrative proceeding did not stand or fall together … . Matter of 130-10 Food Corp. v New York State Div. of Human Rights, 2018 NY Slip Op 08123, Second Dept 11-28-18

CIVIL PROCEDURE (EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION, COMPLAINANT’S ACTUAL EMPLOYER WAS ADDED TO THE EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION PROCEEDING MORE THAN ONE YEAR AFTER TERMINATION, THE RELATION-BACK DOCTRINE DID NOT APPLY, DISCRIMINATION FINDING ANNULLED (SECOND DEPT))/ADMINISTRATIVE LAW  (EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION, COMPLAINANT’S ACTUAL EMPLOYER WAS ADDED TO THE EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION PROCEEDING MORE THAN ONE YEAR AFTER TERMINATION, THE RELATION-BACK DOCTRINE DID NOT APPLY, DISCRIMINATION FINDING ANNULLED (SECOND DEPT))/HUMAN RIGHTS LAW  (EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION, COMPLAINANT’S ACTUAL EMPLOYER WAS ADDED TO THE EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION PROCEEDING MORE THAN ONE YEAR AFTER TERMINATION, THE RELATION-BACK DOCTRINE DID NOT APPLY, DISCRIMINATION FINDING ANNULLED (SECOND DEPT))/EMPLOYMENT LAW  (EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION, COMPLAINANT’S ACTUAL EMPLOYER WAS ADDED TO THE EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION PROCEEDING MORE THAN ONE YEAR AFTER TERMINATION, THE RELATION-BACK DOCTRINE DID NOT APPLY, DISCRIMINATION FINDING ANNULLED (SECOND DEPT))/DISCRIMINATION  (EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION, COMPLAINANT’S ACTUAL EMPLOYER WAS ADDED TO THE EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION PROCEEDING MORE THAN ONE YEAR AFTER TERMINATION, THE RELATION-BACK DOCTRINE DID NOT APPLY, DISCRIMINATION FINDING ANNULLED (SECOND DEPT))/RELATION BACK DOCTRINE (STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION, COMPLAINANT’S ACTUAL EMPLOYER WAS ADDED TO THE EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION PROCEEDING MORE THAN ONE YEAR AFTER TERMINATION, THE RELATION-BACK DOCTRINE DID NOT APPLY, DISCRIMINATION FINDING ANNULLED (SECOND DEPT))/STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS (RELATION BACK DOCTRINE, EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION, COMPLAINANT’S ACTUAL EMPLOYER WAS ADDED TO THE EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION PROCEEDING MORE THAN ONE YEAR AFTER TERMINATION, THE RELATION-BACK DOCTRINE DID NOT APPLY, DISCRIMINATION FINDING ANNULLED (SECOND DEPT))

, , , ,

ALTHOUGH CPLR 2104 DOES NOT APPLY TO STIPULATIONS IN ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS, THE STIPULATION SIGNED BY PLAINTIFF, IN WHICH HE AGREED TO RETIRE IN RETURN FOR THE CESSATION OF DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS, WAS ENFORCEABLE UNDER CONTRACT PRINCIPLES DESPITE PLAINTIFF’S SUBSEQUENT CHANGE OF HEART (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined the stipulation signed by plaintiff teacher, who agreed to resign in return for discontinuing the disciplinary hearing, was binding under contract principles, despite the inapplicability of CPLR 2104 to administrative proceedings. After signing the stipulation, plaintiff changed his mind:

In the stipulation, DOE (Department of Education] agreed to discontinue the disciplinary hearing on the pending misconduct charges and to take no further disciplinary action against plaintiff, in exchange for which plaintiff agreed “to irrevocably retire from his employment with [DOE] … .” The agreement was signed by plaintiff, his counsel, and DOE’s counsel … . Annexed to the stipulation was a letter signed by plaintiff and addressed to District Superintendent Karen Watts stating, “I hereby irrevocably retire from [DOE] … .” The stipulation contained a signature line for Superintendent Watts, who signed it several days later.

Before Superintendent Watts signed the stipulation, plaintiff notified DOE that he had changed his mind and wanted to rescind the stipulation. He argues that the stipulation was unenforceable when he changed his mind because not all the parties had signed it. …

Although CPLR 2104 is not applicable to agreements entered into in administrative proceedings, the stipulation signed by plaintiff and counsel acting on behalf of DOE is binding under general contract principles … . Plaintiff failed to show the existence of fraud, collusion, mistake or accident, or that counsel lacked DOE’s consent to enter into the stipulation … . Plaintiff’s agreement to retire was irrevocable, and plaintiff understood its consequences. His change of mind is not a cause sufficient to set aside his agreement … . Nor is his parol evidence, offered to show that the parties did not intend to be bound by the stipulation until Superintendent Watts had signed it, admissible to add to or vary the terms of the writing … . Matter of Nobile v Board of Educ. of the City Sch. Dist. of the City of N.Y., 2018 NY Slip Op 08065, First Dept 11-27-18

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW (ALTHOUGH CPLR 2104 DOES NOT APPLY TO STIPULATIONS IN ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS, THE STIPULATION SIGNED BY PLAINTIFF, IN WHICH HE AGREED TO RETIRE IN RETURN FOR THE CESSATION OF DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS, WAS ENFORCEABLE UNDER CONTRACT PRINCIPLES DESPITE PLAINTIFF’S SUBSEQUENT CHANGE OF HEART (FIRST DEPT))/CONTRACT LAW  (ALTHOUGH CPLR 2104 DOES NOT APPLY TO STIPULATIONS IN ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS, THE STIPULATION SIGNED BY PLAINTIFF, IN WHICH HE AGREED TO RETIRE IN RETURN FOR THE CESSATION OF DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS, WAS ENFORCEABLE UNDER CONTRACT PRINCIPLES DESPITE PLAINTIFF’S SUBSEQUENT CHANGE OF HEART (FIRST DEPT))/EMPLOYMENT LAW  (ALTHOUGH CPLR 2104 DOES NOT APPLY TO STIPULATIONS IN ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS, THE STIPULATION SIGNED BY PLAINTIFF, IN WHICH HE AGREED TO RETIRE IN RETURN FOR THE CESSATION OF DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS, WAS ENFORCEABLE UNDER CONTRACT PRINCIPLES DESPITE PLAINTIFF’S SUBSEQUENT CHANGE OF HEART (FIRST DEPT))/EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW  (ALTHOUGH CPLR 2104 DOES NOT APPLY TO STIPULATIONS IN ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS, THE STIPULATION SIGNED BY PLAINTIFF, IN WHICH HE AGREED TO RETIRE IN RETURN FOR THE CESSATION OF DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS, WAS ENFORCEABLE UNDER CONTRACT PRINCIPLES DESPITE PLAINTIFF’S SUBSEQUENT CHANGE OF HEART (FIRST DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (ALTHOUGH CPLR 2104 DOES NOT APPLY TO STIPULATIONS IN ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS, THE STIPULATION SIGNED BY PLAINTIFF, IN WHICH HE AGREED TO RETIRE IN RETURN FOR THE CESSATION OF DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS, WAS ENFORCEABLE UNDER CONTRACT PRINCIPLES DESPITE PLAINTIFF’S SUBSEQUENT CHANGE OF HEART (FIRST DEPT))/CPLR 2104  (ALTHOUGH CPLR 2104 DOES NOT APPLY TO STIPULATIONS IN ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS, THE STIPULATION SIGNED BY PLAINTIFF, IN WHICH HE AGREED TO RETIRE IN RETURN FOR THE CESSATION OF DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS, WAS ENFORCEABLE UNDER CONTRACT PRINCIPLES DESPITE PLAINTIFF’S SUBSEQUENT CHANGE OF HEART (FIRST DEPT))

, , , ,

BECAUSE THE PETITIONERS CHOSE TO APPEAL THEIR TERMINATION FROM EMPLOYMENT AS CORRECTION OFFICERS TO THE NYC CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION INSTEAD OF BRINGING AN ARTICLE 78, THE COURT’S REVIEW POWERS ARE EXTREMELY LIMITED, THE TERMINATION WAS UPHELD (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined the NYC Civil Service Commission (CSC) properly upheld the termination of  the petitioner correction officers for using excessive force against an inmate. The court noted that, because the petitioners chose to appeal the determination of the administrative law judge to the CSC, instead of bringing an Article 78, the court’s review powers are extremely limited:

Civil Service Law § 76(1) permits a person whose civil service employment has been terminated to “appeal from such determination either by an application to the state or municipal commission having jurisdiction, or by an application to the court in accordance with [article 78].” If the former option is chosen, “[t]he decision of such civil service commission shall be final and conclusive, and not subject to further review in any court” … . The Court of Appeals has clarified that, despite the plain language in the statute, judicial review is not completely foreclosed … . Rather, the article 78 court, instead of being guided by the substantial evidence or arbitrary and capricious standards of review, is limited to reviewing whether “the agency has acted illegally, unconstitutionally, or in excess of its jurisdiction” … .

Petitioners argue that CSC acted unconstitutionally because it relied on the statements of the inmates, who never testified, thus depriving petitioners of any chance to cross-examine them. However, this point is unpreserved. Petitioners fail to point to anything in the record showing that they ever sought to cross-examine or call the inmates and were denied that opportunity. More importantly, they never protested that their constitutional rights were being violated. This Court has “no discretionary authority” to “reach[] an unpreserved issue in the interest of justice” in an article 78 proceeding challenging an administrative determination … , including issues touching on due process … and evidentiary challenges … . Matter of Almanzar v City of New York City Civ. Serv. Commn., 2018 NY Slip Op 08062, First Dept 11-27-18

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW (BECAUSE THE PETITIONERS CHOSE TO APPEAL THEIR TERMINATION FROM EMPLOYMENT AS CORRECTION OFFICERS TO THE NYC CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION INSTEAD OF BRINGING AN ARTICLE 78, THE COURT’S REVIEW POWERS ARE EXTREMELY LIMITED, THE TERMINATION WAS UPHELD (FIRST DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE  (BECAUSE THE PETITIONERS CHOSE TO APPEAL THEIR TERMINATION FROM EMPLOYMENT AS CORRECTION OFFICERS TO THE NYC CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION INSTEAD OF BRINGING AN ARTICLE 78, THE COURT’S REVIEW POWERS ARE EXTREMELY LIMITED, THE TERMINATION WAS UPHELD (FIRST DEPT))/EMPLOYMENT LAW (BECAUSE THE PETITIONERS CHOSE TO APPEAL THEIR TERMINATION FROM EMPLOYMENT AS CORRECTION OFFICERS TO THE NYC CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION INSTEAD OF BRINGING AN ARTICLE 78, THE COURT’S REVIEW POWERS ARE EXTREMELY LIMITED, THE TERMINATION WAS UPHELD (FIRST DEPT))/APPEALS (CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, BECAUSE THE PETITIONERS CHOSE TO APPEAL THEIR TERMINATION FROM EMPLOYMENT AS CORRECTION OFFICERS TO THE NYC CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION INSTEAD OF BRINGING AN ARTICLE 78, THE COURT’S REVIEW POWERS ARE EXTREMELY LIMITED, THE TERMINATION WAS UPHELD (FIRST DEPT))/MUNICIPAL LAW (EMPLOYMENT LAW, BECAUSE THE PETITIONERS CHOSE TO APPEAL THEIR TERMINATION FROM EMPLOYMENT AS CORRECTION OFFICERS TO THE NYC CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION INSTEAD OF BRINGING AN ARTICLE 78, THE COURT’S REVIEW POWERS ARE EXTREMELY LIMITED, THE TERMINATION WAS UPHELD (FIRST DEPT))

, ,

EMPLOYEES OF SUBCONTRACTOR CAN SUE FOR THE PREVAILING WAGE REQUIRED BY LABOR LAW 220 AS THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARIES OF THE PRIME CONTRACT (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department affirmed the denial of defendant employer’s (SLSCO’s) motion to dismiss the plaintiff employees’ breach of contract complaint. The complaint alleged that SLSCO and the subcontractor, PMJ, which employed plaintiffs, breached the prime employment contract by failing to pay the prevailing wage for work done for the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP). The court noted the employees were third party beneficiaries of the contract and the clause in the contract which purported to prohibit third-party actions seeking the prevailing wage would be void as against public policy:

Plaintiffs are employees of PMJ. They commenced this action for breach of contract against PMJ and SLSCO, predicated upon a third-party contract beneficiary theory, alleging that PMJ failed to pay them prevailing wages as required by the terms of the prime contract … . …

Labor Law § 220(3) provides, in pertinent part, that wages paid to laborers, workers, or mechanics on a public works project shall be the prevailing rate of wages in that locality, and that the public works contracts, including subcontracts thereunder “shall contain a provision that each laborer, workman or mechanic, employed by such contractor, subcontractor or other person about or upon such public work shall be paid the wages herein”. This statute “has as its entire aim the protection of workingmen against being induced, or obliged, to accept wages below the prevailing rate” and “must be construed with the liberality needed to carry out its beneficent purposes”… . In keeping with this liberal reading of the statute, the courts of this state have consistently held that, in public works contracts, a subcontractor’s employees have both an administrative remedy under the statute as well as a third-party right to make a breach of contract claim for underpayment against the general contractor … . Wroble v Shaw Envtl. & Infrastructure Eng’g of N.Y., P.C., 2018 NY Slip Op 08061, First Dept 11-27-18

EMPLOYMENT LAW (LABOR LAW, PREVAILING WAGE, EMPLOYEES OF SUBCONTRACTOR CAN SUE FOR THE PREVAILING WAGE REQUIRED BY LABOR LAW 220 AS THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARIES OF THE PRIME CONTRACT (FIRST DEPT))/LABOR LAW (PREVAILING WAGE, PREVAILING WAGE, EMPLOYEES OF SUBCONTRACTOR CAN SUE FOR THE PREVAILING WAGE REQUIRED BY LABOR LAW 220 AS THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARIES OF THE PRIME CONTRACT (FIRST DEPT))/CONTRACT LAW (EMPLOYMENT LAW, THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARIES, LABOR LAW, EMPLOYEES OF SUBCONTRACTOR CAN SUE FOR THE PREVAILING WAGE REQUIRED BY LABOR LAW 220 AS THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARIES OF THE PRIME CONTRACT (FIRST DEPT))/THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARIES (CONTRACT LAW, EMPLOYMENT LAW, LABOR LAW, EMPLOYEES OF SUBCONTRACTOR CAN SUE FOR THE PREVAILING WAGE REQUIRED BY LABOR LAW 220 AS THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARIES OF THE PRIME CONTRACT (FIRST DEPT))

, , , ,

THE GRANT OF FORD’S MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT IN THIS ASBESTOS CASE AFFIRMED, EVIDENCE OF A CAUSAL CONNECTION BETWEEN ASBESTOS IN BRAKE LININGS AND PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT’S MESOTHELIOMA NOT SUPPORTED BY LEGALLY SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, affirming the grant of defendant-Ford’s motion to set aside the verdict in this asbestos case, over two concurring opinions and a dissenting opinion, determined the evidence of a causal connection between the asbestos in brake linings on Ford vehicles and plaintiff’s decedent’s mesothelioma was legally insufficient. Plaintiff’s decedent worked in a garage and was exposed to asbestos-laden dust from new and used brakes, clutches and manifold and engine gaskets:

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to plaintiffs, the evidence was insufficient as a matter of law to establish that respondent Ford Motor Company’s conduct was a proximate cause of the decedent’s injuries pursuant to the standards set forth in Parker v Mobil Oil Corp. (7 NY3d 434 [2006]) and Cornell v 360 W. 51st St. Realty, LLC(22 NY3d 762 [2014]). Accordingly, on this particular record, defendant was entitled to judgment as a matter of law under CPLR 4404 (a) … . Matter of New York City Asbestos Litig., 2018 NY Slip Op 08059, CtApp 11-27-18

PRODUCTS LIABILITY (ASBESTOS, THE GRANT OF FORD’S MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT IN THIS ASBESTOS CASE AFFIRMED, EVIDENCE OF A CAUSAL CONNECTION BETWEEN ASBESTOS IN BRAKE LININGS AND PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT’S MESOTHELIOMA NOT SUPPORTED BY LEGALLY SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE (CT APP))/TOXIC TORTS  (ASBESTOS, THE GRANT OF FORD’S MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT IN THIS ASBESTOS CASE AFFIRMED, EVIDENCE OF A CAUSAL CONNECTION BETWEEN ASBESTOS IN BRAKE LININGS AND PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT’S MESOTHELIOMA NOT SUPPORTED BY LEGALLY SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE (CT APP))/NEGLIGENCE (TOXIC TORTS, ASBESTOS, THE GRANT OF FORD’S MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT IN THIS ASBESTOS CASE AFFIRMED, EVIDENCE OF A CAUSAL CONNECTION BETWEEN ASBESTOS IN BRAKE LININGS AND PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT’S MESOTHELIOMA NOT SUPPORTED BY LEGALLY SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE (CT APP))/EMPLOYMENT LAW (TOXIC TORTS, ASBESTOS, THE GRANT OF FORD’S MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT IN THIS ASBESTOS CASE AFFIRMED, EVIDENCE OF A CAUSAL CONNECTION BETWEEN ASBESTOS IN BRAKE LININGS AND PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT’S MESOTHELIOMA NOT SUPPORTED BY LEGALLY SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE (CT APP))/ASBESTOS (TOXIC TORTS, ASBESTOS, THE GRANT OF FORD’S MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT IN THIS ASBESTOS CASE AFFIRMED, EVIDENCE OF A CAUSAL CONNECTION BETWEEN ASBESTOS IN BRAKE LININGS AND PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT’S MESOTHELIOMA NOT SUPPORTED BY LEGALLY SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE (CT APP))/MESOTHELIOMA  (TOXIC TORTS, ASBESTOS, THE GRANT OF FORD’S MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT IN THIS ASBESTOS CASE AFFIRMED, EVIDENCE OF A CAUSAL CONNECTION BETWEEN ASBESTOS IN BRAKE LININGS AND PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT’S MESOTHELIOMA NOT SUPPORTED BY LEGALLY SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE (CT APP))

,

CLAIMANT LEFT HIS EMPLOYER’S FARM BRIEFLY USING HIS EMPLOYER’S ATV AND WAS STRUCK BY A VEHICLE WHEN HE ATTEMPTED TO RETURN TO THE FARM, THERE WAS EVIDENCE CLAIMANT CONSUMED ALCOHOL WHICH WAS PROHIBITED BY HIS EMPLOYER, CLAIMANT’S INJURIES DID NOT ARISE FROM HIS EMPLOYMENT, WORKER’S COMPENSATION CLAIM PROPERLY DENIED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined claimant’s injuries did not arise out of his employment. Claimant, a farm worker, used his employer’s ATV to go across the street to where his girlfriend was moving into a house. There was evidence he may have drunk beer, which was prohibited by his employer. When crossing the street to return to the farm claimant was struck by a vehicle and injured:

Regardless of whether claimant was permitted to use the employer’s ATV or to take a break and leave the farm for a brief period of time before returning to work, the employer’s testimony makes clear that consuming alcohol on the job was not a permitted, acceptable or customary deviation from claimant’s employment … . As the record as a whole provides substantial evidence to support the Board’s finding that claimant was engaged in an impermissible deviation from his employment at the time of his accident, his resulting injuries did not arise out of and in the course of his employment and, therefore, are not compensable … . Matter of Button v Button, 2018 NY Slip Op 07809, Third Dept 11-15-18

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION (CLAIMANT LEFT HIS EMPLOYER’S FARM BRIEFLY USING HIS EMPLOYER’S ATV AND WAS STRUCK BY A VEHICLE WHEN HE ATTEMPTED TO RETURN TO THE FARM, THERE WAS EVIDENCE CLAIMANT CONSUMED ALCOHOL WHICH WAS PROHIBITED BY HIS EMPLOYER, CLAIMANT’S INJURIES DID NOT ARISE FROM HIS EMPLOYMENT, WORKER’S COMPENSATION CLAIM PROPERLY DENIED (THIRD DEPT))/EMPLOYMENT LAW (WORKERS’ COMPENSATION, CLAIMANT LEFT HIS EMPLOYER’S FARM BRIEFLY USING HIS EMPLOYER’S ATV AND WAS STRUCK BY A VEHICLE WHEN HE ATTEMPTED TO RETURN TO THE FARM, THERE WAS EVIDENCE CLAIMANT CONSUMED ALCOHOL WHICH WAS PROHIBITED BY HIS EMPLOYER, CLAIMANT’S INJURIES DID NOT ARISE FROM HIS EMPLOYMENT, WORKER’S COMPENSATION CLAIM PROPERLY DENIED (THIRD DEPT))

, ,

WHERE THERE IS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE INJURED PLAINTIFF’S EXCLUSIVE REMEDY IS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BECAUSE THERE IS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF WAS AN EMPLOYEE OR AN INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR, THE ISSUE MUST FIRST BE DECIDED BY THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BOARD, NOT THE COURTS (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined a question of fact whether the injured plaintiff was an employee or an independent contractor (and therefore a question of fact whether the Workers’ Compensation was plaintiff’s exclusive remedy) must ruled on by the Workers’ Compensation Board before the courts can get involved:

Where the availability of workers’ compensation benefits “hinges upon questions of fact or upon mixed questions of fact and law, the parties may not choose the courts as the forum for resolution of the questions, but must look to the Workers’ Compensation Board for such determinations”… . “The question of whether a particular person is an employee within the meaning of the Workers’ Compensation Law is usually a question of fact to be resolved by the Workers’ Compensation Board” … . Here, in light of the affidavit of the defendant’s employee, who stated that he trained the plaintiff, supervised the plaintiff closely, set the plaintiff’s hours on the days the plaintiff worked, and directed the plaintiff’s work, there is a question of fact regarding whether the plaintiff was the defendant’s employee on the date of the accident. Accordingly, because “there is a question of fact as to whether the plaintiff has a valid negligence cause of action against the defendant,” “[t]hat determination must be made in the first instance by the Workers’ Compensation Board …”. Findlater v Catering by Michael Schick, Inc., 2018 NY Slip Op 07702, Second Dept 11-14-18

WORKERS” COMPENSATION (WHERE THERE IS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE INJURED PLAINTIFF’S EXCLUSIVE REMEDY IS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BECAUSE THERE IS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF WAS AN EMPLOYEE OR AN INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR, THE ISSUE MUST FIRST BE DECIDED BY THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BOARD, NOT THE COURTS (SECOND DEPT))/EMPLOYMENT LAW (WORKERS’ COMPENSATION, WHERE THERE IS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE INJURED PLAINTIFF’S EXCLUSIVE REMEDY IS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BECAUSE THERE IS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF WAS AN EMPLOYEE OR AN INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR, THE ISSUE MUST FIRST BE DECIDED BY THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BOARD, NOT THE COURTS (SECOND DEPT))/INDEPENDENT CONTRACTORS (WORKERS’ COMPENSATION, WHERE THERE IS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE INJURED PLAINTIFF’S EXCLUSIVE REMEDY IS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BECAUSE THERE IS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF WAS AN EMPLOYEE OR AN INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR, THE ISSUE MUST FIRST BE DECIDED BY THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BOARD, NOT THE COURTS (SECOND DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (WORKERS’ COMPENSATION, WHERE THERE IS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE INJURED PLAINTIFF’S EXCLUSIVE REMEDY IS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BECAUSE THERE IS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF WAS AN EMPLOYEE OR AN INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR, THE ISSUE MUST FIRST BE DECIDED BY THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BOARD, NOT THE COURTS (SECOND DEPT))

, ,

LAID OFF AT-WILL EMPLOYEE’S WHISTLEBLOWER (LABOR LAW 740) AND FRAUDULENT INDUCEMENT CAUSES OF ACTION PROPERLY DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department determined plaintiff’s whistleblower (Labor Law 740) and fraudulent inducement causes of action were properly dismissed. Plaintiff’s allegations did not meet the statutory criteria of Labor Law 740 and at-will employees who are laid off generally can not bring an action alleging fraudulent inducement:

[Labor Law 740] provides, in relevant part, that “[a]n employer shall not take any retaliatory personnel action against an employee because such employee . . . discloses, or threatens to disclose to a supervisor or to a public body an activity, policy or practice of the employer that is in violation of law, rule or regulation” that either “creates and presents a substantial and specific danger to the public health or safety, or . . . constitutes health care fraud” (Labor Law § 740[2][a]).

While the plaintiff in a whistleblower action must prove, at trial, that an actual violation of law, rule, or regulation occurred … , it is not necessary, for pleading purposes, that the plaintiff identify in the complaint the specific law, rule, or regulation that the defendant allegedly violated … .

Here, while the amended complaint sufficiently alleges a violation of law, rule, or regulation, it fails to allege any substantial and specific danger to the public health or safety resulting from such violation … . …

“New York law is clear that absent a constitutionally impermissible purpose, a statutory proscription, or an express limitation in the individual contract of employment, an employer’s right at any time to terminate an employment at will remains unimpaired,” and the Court of Appeals has “repeatedly refused to recognize exceptions to, or pathways around, these principles” … . Hence, as a general rule, at-will employees may not claim that they were induced to accept their position based on the belief that they would enjoy continued employment …, “even where the circumstances pertain to a plaintiff’s acceptance of an offer of a position rather than his or her termination” … . Since the plaintiff failed to allege any injury independent of termination of her employment, she cannot recover damages for what is, at most, an alleged breach of contract in the guise of a tort … . Coyle v College of Westchester, Inc., 2018 NY Slip Op 07699, Second Dept 11-14-18

EMPLOYMENT LAW (LAID OFF AT-WILL EMPLOYEE’S WHISTLEBLOWER (LABOR LAW 740) AND FRAUDULENT INDUCEMENT CAUSES OF ACTION PROPERLY DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT))/WHISTLEBLOWERS  (LAID OFF AT-WILL EMPLOYEE’S WHISTLEBLOWER (LABOR LAW 740) AND FRAUDULENT INDUCEMENT CAUSES OF ACTION PROPERLY DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT))/LABOR LAW 740 (WHISTLEBLOWERS, LAID OFF AT-WILL EMPLOYEE’S WHISTLEBLOWER (LABOR LAW 740) AND FRAUDULENT INDUCEMENT CAUSES OF ACTION PROPERLY DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT))/FRAUDULENT INDUCEMENT (EMPLOYMENT LAW, AT-WILL EMPLOYEE, (LAID OFF AT-WILL EMPLOYEE’S WHISTLEBLOWER (LABOR LAW 740) AND FRAUDULENT INDUCEMENT CAUSES OF ACTION PROPERLY DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT))/AT-WILL EMPLOYEES  (LAID OFF AT-WILL EMPLOYEE’S WHISTLEBLOWER (LABOR LAW 740) AND FRAUDULENT INDUCEMENT CAUSES OF ACTION PROPERLY DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT))

, , ,

VOLUNTEER AGREEMENT WHICH PURPORTED TO RELEASE DEFENDANT EMPLOYER FROM LIABILITY FOR PLAINTIFF’S ON THE JOB INJURY WAS VOID AS AGAINST PUBLIC POLICY, MOTION TO AMEND THE ANSWER TO ASSERT THE RELEASE AS A DEFENSE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant employer should not have been allowed to amend its answer to assert a release from liability for plaintiff’s injury based on plaintiff’s signing a “Volunteer Agreement.” The Volunteer Agreement purported to release the employer from any liability for injury to plaintiff on the job. Plaintiff was struck by a forklift operated by defendant’s employee. The release violated public policy:

While leave to amend a pleading should be freely granted unless the proposed amendment is palpably insufficient or patently devoid of merit (see CPLR 3025[b] …), here, the proposed amendment was patently devoid of merit … . New York courts have long found agreements between an employer and an employee attempting to exonerate the employer from liability for future negligence whether of itself or its employees or limiting its liability on account of such negligence void as against public policy … .

As observed by the Court of Appeals more than a century ago, “[t]he state is interested in the conservation of the lives and of the healthful vigor of its citizens, and if employers could contract away their responsibility at common law, it would tend to encourage on their part laxity of conduct in, if not an indifference to, the maintenance of proper and reasonable safeguards to human life and limb” … . Contrary to the defendant’s contentions, the public policy considerations applicable to paid employees also apply to a volunteer employee, such as the plaintiff herein. The purported release contained in the “Volunteer Agreement” is void as against public policy. Richardson v Island Harvest, Ltd., 2018 NY Slip Op 07768, Second Dept 11-14-18

EMPLOYMENT LAW (VOLUNTEER AGREEMENT WHICH PURPORTED TO RELEASE DEFENDANT EMPLOYER FROM LIABILITY FOR PLAINTIFF’S ON THE JOB INJURY WAS VOID AS AGAINST PUBLIC POLICY, MOTION TO AMEND THE ANSWER TO ASSERT THE RELEASE AS A DEFENSE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/CONTRACT LAW (EMPLOYMENT LAW, VOLUNTEER AGREEMENT, RELEASE FROM LIABILITY, VOLUNTEER AGREEMENT WHICH PURPORTED TO RELEASE DEFENDANT EMPLOYER FROM LIABILITY FOR PLAINTIFF’S ON THE JOB INJURY WAS VOID AS AGAINST PUBLIC POLICY, MOTION TO AMEND THE ANSWER TO ASSERT THE RELEASE AS A DEFENSE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/NEGLIGENCE (EMPLOYMENT LAW, VOLUNTEER AGREEMENT, RELEASE FROM LIABILITY, VOLUNTEER AGREEMENT WHICH PURPORTED TO RELEASE DEFENDANT EMPLOYER FROM LIABILITY FOR PLAINTIFF’S ON THE JOB INJURY WAS VOID AS AGAINST PUBLIC POLICY, MOTION TO AMEND THE ANSWER TO ASSERT THE RELEASE AS A DEFENSE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/RELEASE (NEGLIGENCE, EMPLOYMENT LAW, VOLUNTEER AGREEMENT, RELEASE FROM LIABILITY, VOLUNTEER AGREEMENT WHICH PURPORTED TO RELEASE DEFENDANT EMPLOYER FROM LIABILITY FOR PLAINTIFF’S ON THE JOB INJURY WAS VOID AS AGAINST PUBLIC POLICY, MOTION TO AMEND THE ANSWER TO ASSERT THE RELEASE AS A DEFENSE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/VOLUNTEER AGREEMENT (EMPLOYMENT LAW, VOLUNTEER AGREEMENT, RELEASE FROM LIABILITY, VOLUNTEER AGREEMENT WHICH PURPORTED TO RELEASE DEFENDANT EMPLOYER FROM LIABILITY FOR PLAINTIFF’S ON THE JOB INJURY WAS VOID AS AGAINST PUBLIC POLICY, MOTION TO AMEND THE ANSWER TO ASSERT THE RELEASE AS A DEFENSE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (AMEND ANSWER, VOLUNTEER AGREEMENT WHICH PURPORTED TO RELEASE DEFENDANT EMPLOYER FROM LIABILITY FOR PLAINTIFF’S ON THE JOB INJURY WAS VOID AS AGAINST PUBLIC POLICY, MOTION TO AMEND THE ANSWER TO ASSERT THE RELEASE AS A DEFENSE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/CPLR 3025 (AMEND ANSWER, (EMPLOYMENT LAW, VOLUNTEER AGREEMENT, RELEASE FROM LIABILITY, VOLUNTEER AGREEMENT WHICH PURPORTED TO RELEASE DEFENDANT EMPLOYER FROM LIABILITY FOR PLAINTIFF’S ON THE JOB INJURY WAS VOID AS AGAINST PUBLIC POLICY, MOTION TO AMEND THE ANSWER TO ASSERT THE RELEASE AS A DEFENSE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/ANSWER (AMEND, (EMPLOYMENT LAW, VOLUNTEER AGREEMENT, RELEASE FROM LIABILITY, VOLUNTEER AGREEMENT WHICH PURPORTED TO RELEASE DEFENDANT EMPLOYER FROM LIABILITY FOR PLAINTIFF’S ON THE JOB INJURY WAS VOID AS AGAINST PUBLIC POLICY, MOTION TO AMEND THE ANSWER TO ASSERT THE RELEASE AS A DEFENSE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))

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