You are here: / Employment Law
, ,

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

 

, ,

TIMELINESS OF A MOTION SEEKING CLASS CERTIFICATION IS MEASURED BY THE INITIAL MOTION, NOT A SUBSEQUENT MOTION TO RENEW AFTER DENIAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE, DEFENDANTS WERE EFFECTIVELY PREVENTING PLAINTIFFS FROM RENEWING THE CLASS CERTIFICATION MOTION BY REFUSING TO TURN OVER PAYROLL DATA TO WHICH THE PLAINTIFFS WERE ENTITLED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendants’ motion to dismiss the class action allegations of the complaint should not have been granted and plaintiffs’ motion to compel the production of payroll data should have been granted. Plaintiffs are home health aides employed by defendants. Plaintiffs sought class certification for their Labor Law underpayment claims. Their initial motion for class certification was denied without prejudice. The defendants subsequently moved to dismiss alleging the plaintiffs did not timely move to renew their motion for class certification. The Second Department held that it is the initial motion for class certification which determines timeliness, not any subsequent motion to renew. The court further held that defendants were effectively preventing plaintiffs from renewing their motion by refusing to turn over the payroll data:

The time limitation to file a motion for class certification “applies only to a motion for the initial certification of the class” … . Here, the plaintiffs’ initial motion for class certification was timely made. Moreover, while the defendants contend that the plaintiffs failed to timely renew their motion, the defendants refused to provide material sought by the plaintiffs which was needed to determine whether the prerequisites of a class action set forth in CPLR 901(a) could be satisfied and to address the considerations set forth in CPLR 902 for determining whether the matter may proceed as a class action … . The items of discovery sought are material and necessary to the determination of whether the plaintiffs “will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class”… , and the evaluation of whether prosecuting or defending separate actions would be impractical or inefficient and any “difficulties likely to be encountered in the management of a class action” … . Melamed v Americare Certified Special Servs., Inc., 2019 NY Slip Op 00268, Second Dept 1-16-19

 

, , ,

BECAUSE THE ANESTHESIOLOGY GROUP (ATLANTIC) WAS ADDED AS A PARTY AFTER THE STATUTE HAD RUN BASED SOLELY ON VICARIOUS LIABILITY FOR ITS EMPLOYEE (DEBRADY) WHO HAD BEEN TIMELY SERVED, ATLANTIC’S POTENTIAL LIABILITY IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION CEASED WHEN DEBRADY’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT WAS GRANTED, ATLANTIC COULD NOT BE HELD LIABLE FOR THE ACTIONS OF ANOTHER EMPLOYEE WHO WAS NEVER A PARTY (CANTALUPO), ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF SUED A JOHN DOE, NO STEPS WERE TAKEN TO SUBSTITUTE CANTALUPO FOR THE JOHN DOE, ATLANTIC’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that the relation-back doctrine did not allow plaintiff in this medical malpractice action to sue an anesthesiology group (Atanitic) as a defendant after the statute of limitations had been expired. Atlantic had been added as a defendant after the statute ran when it was discovered that a defendant anesthesiolgist, DeBrady, worked for Atlantic at the time the procedure was performed on plaintiff. DeBrady’s motion for summary judgment was not opposed and was granted. But Supreme Court held that Atlantic could remain a defendant because of the potential liability of another employee of Atlantic, non-party Cantalupo. The Second Department held that Atlantic’s liability was based solely upon respondeat superior as the employer of DeBrady, who was no longer a defendant. The court noted that, although the complaint named a “John Doe, MD,” Cantalupo could not be substituted as a party because plaintiff never moved to substitute Cantalupo and the requirements of CPLR 1024 were not met:

In order for a cause of action asserted against a new defendant to relate back to the date a claim was asserted against another defendant, the plaintiff must establish that “(1) the [cause of action] arises out of the same conduct, transaction, or occurrence, (2) the additional party is united in interest with the original party, and (3) the additional party knew or should have known that but for a mistake by the plaintiff as to the identity of the proper parties, the action would have been brought against the additional party as well (… see CPLR 203[b]). In malpractice actions, such as this one, “the defendants are considered united in interest when one is vicariously liable for the acts of the other”… . The second prong of the relation-back doctrine requires unity of interest with a party in the action … .

Since Atlantic was made a party to the action after the expiration of the statute of limitations based solely on its unity of interest with DeBrady, who was timely served, Atlantic’s liability in the instant action cannot be predicated upon vicarious liability for the alleged negligent acts of other employees of Atlantic who are not parties to this action, including nonparty Cantalupo. Accordingly, Atlantic demonstrated its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the amended complaint insofar as asserted against it, upon dismissal of the action as against DeBrady … . Ferrara v Jerome Zisfein, 2019 NY Slip Op 00096, Second Dept 1-9-19

 

, ,

PLAINTIFF’S WHISTEBLOWER ACTION AGAINST THE SCHOOL DISTRICT, ALLEGING THE DISTRICT TOOK RETALIATORY ACTION AGAINST PLAINTIFF BECAUSE OF ALLEGATIONS PLAINTIFF MADE AGAINST ANOTHER DISTRICT EMPLOYEE, SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined that plaintiff’s Civil Service Law 75-b action alleging disciplinary action against him was taken in retaliation for his reporting certain allegations about another school district employee should not have been dismissed. Defendant school district notified plaintiff, the district’s head bus driver, he was charged with a conflict of interest in violation of General Business Law 800 the day after plaintiff had made the allegations against the employee in front of the Board of Education.  Supreme Court should not have dismissed plaintiff’s whistleblower action by finding the General Municipal Law 800 conflict of interest charge, not plaintiff’s allegations against the employee, constituted the basis for the district’s disciplinary action against plaintiff:

Supreme Court … erred in the substantive application of Civil Service Law § 75-b relative to defendants’ contention that an independent basis existed for placing plaintiff on administrative leave. To assert a whistleblower claim under Civil Service Law § 75-b, plaintiff must allege, “(1) an adverse personnel action; (2) disclosure of information to a governmental body (a) regarding a violation of a law, rule, or regulation that endangers public health or safety, or (b) which [the plaintiff] reasonably believes to be true and which [he or] she reasonably believes constitutes an improper governmental action; and (3) a causal connection between the disclosure and the adverse personnel action”… . The element of causation requires “that ‘but for’ the protected activity, the adverse personnel action by the public employer would not have occurred”… . Here, the court found that the purported General Municipal Law violation sufficed as a separate and independent basis for the adverse action and dismissed plaintiff’s claim. However, even assuming that the General Municipal Law violation is ultimately demonstrated, the trial court must make “a separate determination regarding the employer’s motivation” to ensure against pretextual dismissals and “shield employees from being retaliated against by an employer’s selective application of theoretically neutral rules” … . Lilley v Greene Cent. Sch. Dist., 2019 NY Slip Op 00019, Third Dept 1-3-19

 

,

PLAINTIFF, WHO IS DEFENDANT’S SON, FELL FROM A LADDER WHEN ATTEMPTING TO INSPECT A DAMAGED CHIMNEY ON DEFENDANT’S RENTAL PROPERTY, QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER PLAINTIFF WAS AN EMPLOYEE OR A VOLUNTEER, WHETHER THE INSPECTION WAS COVERED BY THE LABOR LAW, AND WHETHER DEFENDANT SUPERVISED PLAINTIFF’S WORK PRECLUDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240 (1), 241 (6), 200 AND COMMON LAW NEGLIGENCE CAUSES OF ACTION (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined that questions of fact about (1) whether plaintiff was an employee or a volunteer, (2) whether the inspection work came within the scope of Labor Law coverage, and (3) whether defendant supervised plaintiff’s work giving rise to Labor Law 200 or common-law negligence liability. Plaintiff is defendant’s son and lives with defendant. Defendant owns rental property next door. Defendant set up a ladder for plaintiff at the rental property and asked him to inspect the chimney because pieces of it had fallen to the ground. Plaintiff and the ladder fell when he attempted to inspect the chimney. Plaintiff brought Labor Law 240 (1), 241 (6), 200 and common-law negligence causes of action:

… [D]efendant’s testimony … established that she directed plaintiff on what to do when he inspected the chimney, had previously paid him for repairs and would have paid him if he had carried out the chimney cap repairs. We agree with Supreme Court that this testimony presents a triable issue of fact as to whether plaintiff was a volunteer or an employee within the meaning of the Labor Law and the Industrial Code … . …

As plaintiff and defendant both anticipated that plaintiff would carry out the repair if his inspection revealed that this would be feasible, this record does not permit a determination as a matter of law that the chimney inspection was “a separate phase easily distinguishable from” the actual repair, and thus outside the statutory protection … .

Although defendant asserts that she did not supervise plaintiff’s work and did not tell him how to use the ladder, her own testimony establishes that the ladder belonged to her and that she put it in place — allegedly on uneven ground — without plaintiff’s participation, directed him to use the ladder, and told him what to do in inspecting the chimney. Thus, there is a triable issue of fact as to whether defendant exercised supervisory control over the manner and methods by which plaintiff performed the task of inspecting the chimney … . Doskotch v Pisocki, 2019 NY Slip Op 00017, Third Dept 1-3-19

 

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