You are here: / Employment 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 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))

, ,

EMPLOYEE WAS NOT ACTING WITHIN THE SCOPE OF HER EMPLOYMENT WHEN SHE ASSAULTED PLAINTIFF IN THE EMPLOYER’S PARKING LOT, SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS THIRD PARTY ASSAULT CASE PROPERLY GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined the employer’s motion for summary judgment in this third-party assault case was properly granted. After an employee (Hartfield) had been asked to leave for the day by the employer, the employee assaulted plaintiff in the parking lot. The doctrine of respondeat superior did not apply because the employee was not acting within the scope of her employment at the time of the assault:

… [D]efendant established as a matter of law that the doctrine of respondeat superior is inapplicable because Hartfield was not acting within the scope of her employment at the time of the assault. The doctrine of respondeat superior renders an employer “vicariously liable for the tortious acts of its employees only if those acts were committed in furtherance of the employer’s business and within the scope of employment”… .. Although the issue whether an employee is acting within the scope of his or her employment is generally a question of fact, summary judgment is appropriate “in a case such as this, in which the relevant facts are undisputed” … . Here, we conclude that defendant met its initial burden of establishing that Hartfield’s assault of plaintiff was not committed in furtherance of defendant’s business and was not within the scope of employment … . Stribing v Bill Gray’s Inc., 2018 NY Slip Op 07566, Fourth Dept 11-9-18

NEGLIGENCE (EMPLOYEE WAS NOT ACTING WITHIN THE SCOPE OF HER EMPLOYMENT WHEN SHE ASSAULTED PLAINTIFF IN THE EMPLOYER’S PARKING LOT, SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS THIRD PARTY ASSAULT CASE PROPERLY GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT))/EMPLOYMENT LAW (RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR, EMPLOYEE WAS NOT ACTING WITHIN THE SCOPE OF HER EMPLOYMENT WHEN SHE ASSAULTED PLAINTIFF IN THE EMPLOYER’S PARKING LOT, SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS THIRD PARTY ASSAULT CASE PROPERLY GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT))/BATTERY (EMPLOYMENT LAW, RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR, EMPLOYEE WAS NOT ACTING WITHIN THE SCOPE OF HER EMPLOYMENT WHEN SHE ASSAULTED PLAINTIFF IN THE EMPLOYER’S PARKING LOT, SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS THIRD PARTY ASSAULT CASE PROPERLY GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT))/RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR (NEGLIGENCE, BATTERY, EMPLOYEE WAS NOT ACTING WITHIN THE SCOPE OF HER EMPLOYMENT WHEN SHE ASSAULTED PLAINTIFF IN THE EMPLOYER’S PARKING LOT, SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS THIRD PARTY ASSAULT CASE PROPERLY GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT))/THIRD PARTY ASSAULT (EMPLOYMENT LAW, RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR, EMPLOYEE WAS NOT ACTING WITHIN THE SCOPE OF HER EMPLOYMENT WHEN SHE ASSAULTED PLAINTIFF IN THE EMPLOYER’S PARKING LOT, SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS THIRD PARTY ASSAULT CASE PROPERLY GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT))

, ,

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH REGULATIONS PLACING HARD CAPS ON EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION AND ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENDITURES BY HEALTHCARE PROVIDERS RECEIVING PUBLIC FUNDS PROPERLY PROMULGATED (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge DiFiore, over a two-judge dissent, determined that the hard caps imposed by Department of Health (DOH) regulations on the executive compensation and administrative expenditures by healthcare providers receiving public funds were properly promulgated. Another regulation which sought to impose a soft cap was deemed to have exceeded the regulatory powers of the DOH. The court’s anlaysis applied the Boreali factors which address the line between administrative rule-making and legislative policy-making (separation of powers):

In totality, following consideration of the Boreali factors, we are unconvinced that, in adopting the hard cap regulations, DOH exceeded its regulatory authority. The Legislature expressed a policy goal — that state healthcare funds should be expended in the most efficient and effective manner to maximize the quality and availability of public care — and the hard cap regulations, which focus exclusively on the appropriate use of state funds, are directly tied to that goal without improperly subverting it in favor of unrelated public policy interests … . * * *

… [T]he soft cap regulation cannot be said to here “fill in details of a broad policy.” Rather than determining the best way to regulate toward the legislative goal identified in its enabling legislation (i.e., using state funds to purchase affordable, quality care) with respect to the soft cap DOH appears to have envisioned an additional goal of limiting executive compensation as a matter of public policy and regulated to that end. Thus, we agree with the conclusion of the courts below that the soft cap regulation was promulgated in excess of DOH’s administrative authority. Matter of LeadingAge N.Y., Inc. v Shah, 2018 NY Slip Op 06965, CtApp 10-18-18

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW (DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH REGULATIONS PLACING HARD CAPS ON EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION AND ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENDITURES BY HEALTHCARE PROVIDERS RECEIVING PUBLIC FUNDS PROPERLY PROMULGATED (CT APP))/CONSTITUTIONAL LAW (SEPARATION OF POWERS, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH REGULATIONS PLACING HARD CAPS ON EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION AND ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENDITURES BY HEALTHCARE PROVIDERS RECEIVING PUBLIC FUNDS PROPERLY PROMULGATED (CT APP))/EMPLOYMENT LAW (EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH REGULATIONS PLACING HARD CAPS ON EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION AND ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENDITURES BY HEALTHCARE PROVIDERS RECEIVING PUBLIC FUNDS PROPERLY PROMULGATED (CT APP))/EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION (HEALTHCARE PROVIDERS, (DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH REGULATIONS PLACING HARD CAPS ON EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION AND ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENDITURES BY HEALTHCARE PROVIDERS RECEIVING PUBLIC FUNDS PROPERLY PROMULGATED (CT APP))/BOREALI FACTORS (ADMINISTRATIVE LAW, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH REGULATIONS PLACING HARD CAPS ON EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION AND ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENDITURES BY HEALTHCARE PROVIDERS RECEIVING PUBLIC FUNDS PROPERLY PROMULGATED (CT APP))/REGULATIONS (ADMINISTRATIVE LAW, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH REGULATIONS PLACING HARD CAPS ON EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION AND ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENDITURES BY HEALTHCARE PROVIDERS RECEIVING PUBLIC FUNDS PROPERLY PROMULGATED (CT APP))/DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH (ADMINISTRATIVE LAW, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH REGULATIONS PLACING HARD CAPS ON EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION AND ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENDITURES BY HEALTHCARE PROVIDERS RECEIVING PUBLIC FUNDS PROPERLY PROMULGATED (CT APP))

, ,

APPRENTICES WHO WORK OUTSIDE THE THEIR APPRENTICESHIP TRAINING CANNOT BE PAID THE LOWER APPRENTICE RATES, HERE APPRENTICE GLAZIERS DOING IRONWORK WHEN INSTALLING STOREFRONTS MUST BE PAID AT THE HIGHER JOURNEY-LEVEL RATE (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, reversing the Appellate Division, determined that the prevailing wage provision of Labor Law 220 was properly interpreted by the Department of Labor (DOL) to mean that apprentices who work outside of their apprenticeship training cannot be paid at the lower apprenticeship rate. Here apprentice glaziers who were doing ironwork when installing storefronts must be paid higher journey-level rates for ironwork:

… [T]he DOL interprets Labor Law § 220 (3-e) to mean that apprentices employed on public work projects may be paid apprentice rates only if they are performing tasks within the trade classification (e.g., “glazier,” “ironworker”) that is the subject of the apprenticeship program in which they are enrolled. Apprentices who are performing tasks, in the installation of storefronts, curtain wall, and preglazed windows, that are classified as ironwork tasks may be paid the apprentice rate only if they are enrolled in an ironworker apprentice program (approved by the DOL), as opposed to a glazier apprentice program. Apprentices learning any trade other than ironwork, including those enrolled in a glazier apprenticeship program, must be paid journey-level ironworker prevailing wages and benefit rates if they are engaged in the parts of a work process that are classified as ironwork tasks. * * *

Given that Labor Law § 220 as a whole was “intended to prevent employers from cutting standards of construction work by hiring an excessive number of unskilled employees, and to ensure that learning-level workers receive approved, supervised training” … , it was rational for the DOL to conclude that section 220 (3-e) prohibits employers from diluting standards by hiring apprentices to perform tasks in trades for which they are not training. International Union of Painters & Allied Trades, Dist. Council No. 4 v New York State Dept. of Labor, 2018 NY Slip Op 06963, CtApp 10-18-18

EMPLOYMENT LAW (LABOR LAW, APPRENTICES WHO WORK OUTSIDE THE THEIR APPRENTICESHIP TRAINING CANNOT BE PAID THE LOWER APPRENTICE RATES, HERE APPRENTICE GLAZIERS DOING IRONWORK WHEN INSTALLING STOREFRONTS MUST BE PAID AT THE HIGHER JOURNEY-LEVEL RATE (CT APP))/LABOR LAW (APPRENTICES WHO WORK OUTSIDE THE THEIR APPRENTICESHIP TRAINING CANNOT BE PAID THE LOWER APPRENTICE RATES, HERE APPRENTICE GLAZIERS DOING IRONWORK WHEN INSTALLING STOREFRONTS MUST BE PAID AT THE HIGHER JOURNEY-LEVEL RATE (CT APP))/ADMINISTRATIVE LAW (DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, APPRENTICES WHO WORK OUTSIDE THE THEIR APPRENTICESHIP TRAINING CANNOT BE PAID THE LOWER APPRENTICE RATES, HERE APPRENTICE GLAZIERS DOING IRONWORK WHEN INSTALLING STOREFRONTS MUST BE PAID AT THE HIGHER JOURNEY-LEVEL RATE (CT APP))/APPRENTICES (LABOR LAW, APPRENTICES WHO WORK OUTSIDE THE THEIR APPRENTICESHIP TRAINING CANNOT BE PAID THE LOWER APPRENTICE RATES, HERE APPRENTICE GLAZIERS DOING IRONWORK WHEN INSTALLING STOREFRONTS MUST BE PAID AT THE HIGHER JOURNEY-LEVEL RATE (CT APP))

, ,

INSURANCE COMPANY NOT VICARIOUSLY LIABLE FOR AN ALLEGED CIVIL ASSAULT AND BATTERY BY A PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR, THE INVESTIGATOR WAS DEEMED A SUBCONTRACTOR, NOT AN EMPLOYEE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the MetLife was not vicariously liable for an alleged civil assault and battery by a private investigator, who was deemed to be a subcontractor, not an employee of MetLife:

” The doctrine of respondeat superior renders a master vicariously liable for a tort committed by his [or her] servant within the scope of employment. Conversely, the general rule is that an employer who hires an independent contractor is not liable for the independent contractor’s negligent acts'” … . ” The determination of whether an employer-employee relationship exists turns on whether the alleged employer exercises control over the results produced, or the means used to achieve the results. Control over the means is the more important consideration'” … . However, “[i]ncidental control over the results produced without further indicia of control over the means employed to achieve the results will not constitute substantial evidence of an employer-employee relationship” … .

Here, the contract between MetLife and Scope provided that Scope’s “affiliates and agents” were “solely personnel of [Scope] and not MetLife,” and that Scope would have “full responsibility for the actions and omissions of all personnel employed by [Scope] or any agents who are involved in performing the Services and for any losses arising therefrom.” The contract likewise contained a clause in which Scope agreed to indemnify MetLife for, inter alia, losses resulting from “negligent or wrongful acts.” Although, as the plaintiffs point out, a rider to the contract sets forth “Minimum Standards” for private investigators employed by Scope, “[t]he requirement that the work be done properly is a condition just as readily required of an independent contractor as of an employee and not conclusive as to either” … . McHale v Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 2018 NY Slip Op 06895, Second Dept 10-17-18

EMPLOYMENT LAW (INSURANCE COMPANY NOT VICARIOUSLY LIABLE FOR AN ALLEGED CIVIL ASSAULT AND BATTERY BY A PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR, THE INVESTIGATOR WAS DEEMED A SUBCONTRACTOR, NOT AN EMPLOYEE (SECOND DEPT))/NEGLIGENCE (EMPLOYMENT LAW, INSURANCE COMPANY NOT VICARIOUSLY LIABLE FOR AN ALLEGED CIVIL ASSAULT AND BATTERY BY A PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR, THE INVESTIGATOR WAS DEEMED A SUBCONTRACTOR, NOT AN EMPLOYEE (SECOND DEPT))/SUBCONTRACTORS (VICARIOUS LIABILITY, (INSURANCE COMPANY NOT VICARIOUSLY LIABLE FOR AN ALLEGED CIVIL ASSAULT AND BATTERY BY A PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR, THE INVESTIGATOR WAS DEEMED A SUBCONTRACTOR, NOT AN EMPLOYEE (SECOND DEPT))/VICARIOUS LIABILITY (EMPLOYMENT LAW, NEGLIGENCE, INSURANCE COMPANY NOT VICARIOUSLY LIABLE FOR AN ALLEGED CIVIL ASSAULT AND BATTERY BY A PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR, THE INVESTIGATOR WAS DEEMED A SUBCONTRACTOR, NOT AN EMPLOYEE (SECOND DEPT))THIRD PARTY ASSAULT  (INSURANCE COMPANY NOT VICARIOUSLY LIABLE FOR AN ALLEGED CIVIL ASSAULT AND BATTERY BY A PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR, THE INVESTIGATOR WAS DEEMED A SUBCONTRACTOR, NOT AN EMPLOYEE (SECOND DEPT))/BATTERY (EMPLOYMENT LAW, INSURANCE COMPANY NOT VICARIOUSLY LIABLE FOR AN ALLEGED CIVIL ASSAULT AND BATTERY BY A PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR, THE INVESTIGATOR WAS DEEMED A SUBCONTRACTOR, NOT AN EMPLOYEE (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