You are here: / Employment Law
, ,

PLAINTIFF DID NOT PROVE DEFENDANT OWNER OF DEFENDANT CORPORATION WAS PROPERLY SERVED WITH THE SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT BY SUBSTITUTE SERVICE; EVEN PROPER SUBSTITUTE SERVICE WOULD NOT BE SUFFICIENT TO ACQUIRE PERSONAL JURISDICTION OVER A CORPORATION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the defendant owner of defendant corporation (Tatiana Batin) and the corporation (Godess … Spa …) were not properly served with the summons and complaint in this action alleging an employee of defendant corporation sexually abused plaintiff during a massage:

… [P]laintiff failed to demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that Batin was properly served with the summons and complaint pursuant to CPLR 308(2). The hearing evidence established that the address at which Batin was purportedly served pursuant to CPLR 308(2) was neither her actual dwelling place nor her usual place of abode as of the purported date of service … . Contrary to the Supreme Court’s determination, “‘[e]ven if a defendant eventually acquires actual notice of the lawsuit, actual notice alone will not sustain the service or subject a person to the court’s jurisdiction when there has not been compliance with prescribed conditions of service'” … .

… [P]laintiff failed to demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that Goddess was properly served pursuant to CPLR 311(a)(1), which required delivery of the summons and complaint to “an officer, director, managing or general agent, or . . . any other agent authorized . . . to receive service.” “Personal service on a corporation must be made to one of the persons authorized by the statute to accept service, and an attempt to serve such person by substitute service pursuant to CPLR 308(2) or (4) will be insufficient to acquire jurisdiction over the corporation” … . Here, even assuming, arguendo, that Batin had been properly served pursuant to CPLR 308(2), substituted service upon her pursuant to CPLR 308(2) would be insufficient to acquire personal jurisdiction over Goddess, as CPLR 311(a)(1) requires personal service directly upon a corporate representative … . Flatow v Goddess Sanctuary & Spa Corp., 2024 NY Slip Op 06029, Second Dept 12-4-24

Practice Point: At the hearing plaintiff did not prove defendant owner of defendant corporation was properly served with the summons and complaint by substitute service.

Practice Point: Personal jurisdiction over a corporation cannot be acquired by substitute service.

 

, ,

DEFENDANT’ CLOTHING STORE’S EMPLOYEE ALLEGEDLY ATTEMPTED TO RECORD PLAINTIFF IN A CHANGING ROOM; THE NEGLIGENT HIRING CAUSE OF ACTION, BASED ON THE ALLEGATION THE STORE DID NOT CONDUCT A BACKGROUND CHECK BEFORE HIRING THE EMPLOYEE, SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant clothing store (Gap) was entitled to summary judgment dismissing the negligent-hiring-supervision complaint. Plaintiff alleged a store employee, Medel, attempted to record her on a cell phone as she was changing in a fitting room. The negligent hiring cause of action alleged Gap did not do a background check before hiring Medel, which was alleged to have been in violation of store policy:

The Supreme Court erred in denying those branches of the store defendants’ motion which were for summary judgment dismissing the causes of action alleging negligent hiring, training, supervision, and retention insofar as asserted against them. “‘[A] necessary element of such causes of action is that the employer knew or should have known of the employee’s propensity for the conduct which caused the injury'” … . Here, the submissions of the store defendants in support of their motion demonstrated, prima facie, that they did not have notice of any propensity of Medel to commit misconduct … .

In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether Gap or Old Navy knew or should have known that Medel had a propensity to commit misconduct … . The plaintiff’s contention, via the affidavit of her expert, that neither Gap nor Old Navy appeared to have conducted a background check prior to hiring Medel, as was their apparent internal policy before hiring any employees, is without merit. “There is no common-law duty to institute specific procedures for hiring employees unless the employer knows of facts that would lead a reasonably prudent person to investigate the prospective employee” … . Moreover, the plaintiff failed to submit any evidence that a background check of Medel would have revealed a propensity to commit misconduct … . Hashimi v Gap, Inc., 2024 NY Slip Op 05961, Second Dept 11-27-24

Practice Point: A negligent hiring cause of action based on the allegation the employer did not conduct a background check, without more, will not survive a motion to dismiss. Plaintiff must demonstrate the employer knew of facts which should have triggered a background check.

 

, , , , ,

THE “MINISTERIAL EXCEPTION” IS GROUNDED IN THE FIRST AMEMDMENT AND MAY RESTRICT A STATE AGENCY’S REVIEW OF EMPLOYMENT DECISIONS MADE BY RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS; THE EXCEPTION IS AN AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, NOT A JURISDICTIONAL BAR, TO A HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT ACTION UNDER THE NYS HUMAN RIGHTS LAW (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Halligan, reversing the New York State Division of Human Rights (DHR) and the Appellate Division, determined the so-called “ministerial exception” was not a jurisdictional bar to the Nigerian priest’s, Ibhawa’s, hostile work environment claim under the NYS Human Rights Law. The “ministerial exception” is grounded in the First Amendment and may restrict state interference with employment decisions made by religious institutions.. The Court of Appeals clarified that the ministerial exception is an affirmative defense in an employment discrimination action against a religious institution, not a jurisdictional bar to bringing the case:

Ibhawa filed an employment complaint with the New York State Division of Human Rights (DHR) in November 2020, claiming that the Diocese had engaged in discriminatory employment practices in violation of the New York Human Rights Law (see Executive Law art 15). Ibhawa alleged that he had experienced racial discrimination at the Diocese, including from an employee who directed a racial slur at him and a parishioner who made xenophobic remarks to him. He further alleged that the Diocesan officials to whom he reported the incidents declined to investigate them, questioned his decision to terminate the employee who had used a racial slur, and made “highly insulting and offensive” remarks about “foreign priests.” At a subsequent meeting, two Diocesan officials offered to buy Ibhawa a plane ticket to Nigeria and told him that the “Bishop could remove [his] faculties.” Shortly afterwards, the Diocese informed Ibhawa that his employment had been terminated and his priestly faculties removed, which meant that that he could not apply for a position as a priest in the Diocese. The Diocese eventually hired a white priest to replace him. Based on these assertions, Ibhawa alleged claims of hostile work environment and unlawful termination on the basis of race and national origin. He sought, among other remedies, compensatory and punitive damages. * * *

DHR’s order dismissing Ibhawa’s hostile work environment claim was affected by an error of law. After noting the parties’ agreement that Ibhawa was “a priest serving as the pastor (Parish Administrator) of a church,” DHR found that his complaint “comes under the ministerial exception (relative to the first amendment of the U.S. Constitution).” On that basis, DHR concluded that it lacked jurisdiction over Ibhawa’s claims. This determination was contrary to the U.S. Supreme Court’s express holding that the “exception operates as an affirmative defense to an otherwise cognizable claim, not a jurisdictional bar” … . Matter of Ibhawa v New York State Div. of Human Rights, 2024 NY Slip Op 05872, CtApp 11-26-24

Practice Point: The “ministerial exception” is grounded in the First Amendment and may restrict a state agency’s review of employment decisions made by religious institutions. The exception is an affirmative defense, not a jurisdictional bar, to a hostile work environment action brought by a priest against his employer.

 

, , , ,

DEFENDANT SCHOOL DISTRICT DID NOT MAKE OUT A PRIMA FACIE CASE DEMONSTRATING IT LACKED CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE TEACHER’S ALLEGED PROPENSITY TO SEXUALLY ABUSE CHILDREN; THEREFORE ITS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS CHILD VICTIMS ACT CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant school district was not entitled to summary judgment in this case alleging sexual abuse by a teacher in 2013 – 2014. A question of fact had been raised about whether the school district knew or should have known of the teacher’s alleged propensity to abuse children:

“Although an employer cannot be held vicariously liable for torts committed by an employee who is acting solely for personal motives unrelated to the furtherance of the employer’s business, the employer may still be held liable under theories of negligent hiring, retention, and supervision of the employee” … . “‘[A] necessary element of such causes of action is that the employer knew or should have known of the employee’s propensity for the conduct which caused the injury'” … .

“A school ‘has a duty to exercise the same degree of care toward its students as would a reasonably prudent parent, and will be held liable for foreseeable injuries proximately related to the absence of adequate supervision'” … . “‘The standard for determining whether the school has breached its duty is to compare the school’s supervision and protection to that of a parent of ordinary prudence placed in the same situation and armed with the same information'” … . “‘The adequacy of a school’s supervision of its students is generally a question left to the trier of fact to resolve, as is the question of whether inadequate supervision was the proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injury'” … . “Where the complaint alleges negligent supervision due to injuries related to an individual’s intentional acts, the plaintiff generally must demonstrate that the school knew or should have known of the individual’s propensity to engage in such conduct, such that the individual’s acts could be anticipated or were foreseeable” … . “‘Actual or constructive notice to the school of prior similar conduct generally is required'” … .

Here, the defendants failed to establish, prima facie, that they lacked constructive notice of the teacher’s alleged abusive propensities and conduct … . In particular, the defendants submitted a transcript of the plaintiff’s deposition testimony, in which the plaintiff testified that the principal and other teachers were aware of the teacher’s inappropriate behavior, which occurred multiple times throughout the school year in a classroom on the defendants’ premises during school hours … . J.J. v Mineola Sch. Dist., 2024 NY Slip Op 05580, Second Dept 11-13-24

Practice Point: Here the plaintiff’s testimony that the principal and other teachers were aware of the teacher’s inappropriate behavior which occurred multiple times in a classroom was enough to prevent the school from making out a prima facie case that it did not have constructive notice of the teacher’s alleged propensity.

 

, ,

IN A CHILD VICTIMS ACT CASE AGAINST A TEACHER ALLEGED TO HAVE SEXUALLY ABUSED A STUDENT IN THE 60’S, THE BARE ALLEGATION IN THE COMPLAINT THAT THE EMPLOYER KNEW OR SHOULD HAVE KNOWN OF THE TEACHER’S PROPENSITY WAS NOT SUFFICIENT TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION; COMPLAINT DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court in this Child Victims Act case, determined the complaint did not state a cause of action for negligent retention or negligent supervision of a teacher alleged to have sexually abused plaintiff in the 60’s. An allegation which merely states a bare legal conclusion is not entitled to consideration on a motion to dismiss. Here the complaint alleged defendant employer, YCQ,  “knew or should have known of the employee’s propensity for the conduct which caused the injury:”

… [T]o sustain the cause of action sounding in negligent supervision of a child, the plaintiff was required to allege that YCQ “had sufficiently specific knowledge or notice of the dangerous conduct which caused injury; that is, that the third-party acts could reasonably have been anticipated” … . Similarly, “[a]n employer can be held liable under theories of negligent hiring, retention, and supervision where it is shown that the employer knew or should have known of the employee’s propensity for the conduct which caused the injury” … .

Here, the complaint failed to state a cause of action alleging negligent retention of the religious studies teacher by YCQ and a cause of action alleging negligent supervision based upon YCQ’s failure to adequately supervise the plaintiff and/or the religious studies teacher, as the complaint did not sufficiently plead that YCQ knew or should have known of the religious studies teacher’s propensity for the type of conduct at issue … . While it is true that such causes of action need not be pleaded with specificity … , the complaint merely asserted the bare legal conclusion that YCQ “knew or should have known of [the religious studies teacher’s] propensity to sexually abuse minor students,” without providing any factual allegations that the religious studies teacher’s sexual abuse of the plaintiff was foreseeable … . Kessler v Yeshiva of Cent. Queens, 2024 NY Slip Op 05337, Second Dept 10-30-24

Practice Point: In a Child Victims Act case alleging negligent retention and negligent retention of a teacher who allegedly sexually abused a student, the bare allegation that the teacher’s employer knew or should have known of the teacher’s propensity was not enough to survive a motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action. Allegations which amount to bare legal conclusions will not be considered on a motion to dismiss.

 

,

HUSBAND WAS IN THE NAVY FOR ABOUT NINE YEARS BEFOR MARRIAGE; DURING THE MARRIAGE HE LEFT THE NAVY AND JOINED THE FOREIGN SERVICE WHICH ALLOWED HIM TO “PURCHASE” CREDITS FOR HIS TIME IN THE NAVY TO AUGMENT HIS FOREIGN SERVICE PENSION; THE PORTION OF HIS PENSION ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE PRE-MARRIAGE SERVICE IN THE NAVY IS MARITAL, NOT SEPARATE, PROPERTY (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Wilson, reversing the Appellate Division, determined the portion of the husband’s pension which stemmed from his pre-marriage service in the Navy was marital, not separate, property:

In this case, a couple used marital funds to augment the husband’s Foreign Service pension so that it included credit for his pre-marriage military service. The issue is whether the portion of the pension related to the pre-marriage military service is separate or marital property. We hold that the portion of the Foreign Service pension related to credit for that service is entirely marital property because marital funds were used to transform the credits into pension rights. * * *

John Szypula joined the Navy in 1987, when he was 22. He and Meredith Szypula were married nine years later. Two years later, in 1998, Mr. Szypula left the Navy. In general, members of the armed services become entitled to retirement pay only after they complete twenty years of service. When Mr. Szypula left the Navy, he was not entitled to military retirement benefits.

From 1998 to 2012, Mr. Szypula worked in the private sector. In 2012, he joined the Foreign Service and enrolled in the Foreign Service Pension System (FSPS). Veterans who join the Foreign Service—like Mr. Szypula—may add their years of military service to their FSPS pensions by making additional contributions for the years they served in the military. Mr. and Ms. Szypula took advantage of this benefit. From 2012 to 2018, a portion of Mr. Szypula’s earnings was withheld to enhance his Foreign Service pension by “buying back” his eleven years of Navy service, at a total cost of $9,158.00. As a result of those payments and his eleven years of Navy service, Mr. Szypula’s FSPS pension will vest sooner and be worth more. Szypula v Szypula, 2024 NY Slip Op 05177, CtApp 10-22-24

 

,

THE WARRANT ENTITLING PLAINTIFF TO MORE THAN 1100 SHARES OF DEFENDANT CORPORATION’S STOCK WAS APPENDED TO PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT WITH DEFENDANT; THE TWO CONTRACTS DID NOT MERGE AND ANY ALLEGED BREACH OF THE EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT BY PLAINTIFF DID NOT PRECLUDE THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE WARRANT (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Oing, affirming Supreme Court, determined that the Warrant was a separate contract entitling plaintiff to 1,148 shares of defendant corporation, SPI. SPI argued the Employment Contract and the Warrant merged forming a single contract and plaintiff’s breach of the Employment Contract precluded recovery on the Warrant. The First Department held that the fact that the Employment Contract was appended to the Warrant was not enough to demonstrate the two contracts merged:

SPI argues that appending the Employment Agreement to the Warrant demonstrates integration of the two agreements, or at a minimum raises a factual issue, relying on Starr Indem. & Lia. Co. v Brightstar Corp. (388 F Supp 3d 304 [SD NY 2019]). The argument is unavailing because it is based on a misreading of Starr Indemnity. That decision held that, to incorporate a document into another agreement, “[n]o particular mode of reference is necessary for that purpose; any language which indicates the intent that the two shall make one instrument, or a physical annexing of the one to the other, in a manner or under circumstances [*6]showing clearly such intent, is sufficient” … . SPI overlooks the element of intent in its argument, basing its position solely on the fact that the Employment Agreement is attached to the Warrant. The mere fact that the Employment Agreement is appended to the Warrant is insufficient, standing alone, to demonstrate incorporation. Absent from the Warrant is any contractual language indicating a clear and unequivocal intent to incorporate and integrate the Employment Agreement. Instead, the Warrant simply states without qualification that plaintiff and SPI had entered into the annexed Employment Agreement, and fails to set forth any language providing for integration of the two agreements … . O’Connor v Society Pass Inc., 2024 NY Slip Op 05141, First Dept 10-17-24

Practice Point: The fact that one contract is appended to another, standing alone, is not enough to demonstrate the two contracts merged or were integrated.​

 

, , ,

TENURED TEACHERS WERE NOT ENTITLED TO A HEARING BEFORE BEING PLACED ON LEAVE BECAUSE THEY DID NOT SUBMIT PROOF OF VACCINATION AGAINST COVID; HEARINGS ARE REQUIRED IN DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS, BUT NOT WHERE, AS HERE, TEACHERS FAIL TO COMPLY WITH A CONDITION OF EMPLOYMENT (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, affirming the dismissals of the tenured New York City teachers’ petitions, determined the teachers were properly placed on leave without pay for failing to submit proof of vaccination against COVID. The petitioners’ argument that they were entitled to a hearing pursuant to the Education Law prior to being placed on leave was rejected because the teachers were not being disciplined. Rather, they failed to comply with a condition of employment:

Petitioners were not entitled to the hearing procedures outlined in Education Law §§ 3020 and 3020-a before being placed on leave without pay. These statutory provisions establish a detailed and comprehensive system for conducting disciplinary hearings for tenured teachers. While tenured teachers have a right to these statutory hearings when faced with disciplinary proceedings, these provisions are not applicable to petitioners, who were placed on leave without pay for failure to comply with the vaccine mandate, a condition of employment.

This Court has long distinguished between disciplinary proceedings and employment conditions for employees entitled to statutory civil service protections, and has held that statutory hearings are not warranted when employment eligibility conditions are enforced … . Matter of O’Reilly v Board of Educ. of the City Sch. Dist. of the City of N.Y., 2024 NY Slip Op 05130, CtApp 10-17-24

Practice Point: The Education Law requires hearings before tenured teachers can be disciplined. But no hearing is required before placing teachers on leave for failure to comply with a condition of employment (here the submission of proof of vaccination against COVID).

 

, , ,

PLAINTIFF’S SUIT AGAINST HIS EMPLOYER UNDER THE WHISTLEBLOWER LAW (LABOR LAW 740) SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED BECAUSE THE AMENDMENTS TO THE STATUTE APPLY RETROACTIVELY TO PLAINTIFF’S ALLEGATIONS; PLAINTIFF’S AGE-DISCRIMINATION CAUSES OF ACTION UNDER THE STATE AND NYC HUMAN RIGHTS LAW SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined amendments to the  Whistleblower Law (Labor Law 740) applied retroactively. Therefore plaintiff could sue based upon events which preceded the amendments. In addition, the First Department held plaintiff’s age-discrimination claims pursuant to the state and NYC Human Right Law should not have been dismissed:

Plaintiff states that he made numerous complaints to management at the hotel where he was employed. He complained that the windows lacked safety bars and were left wide open, that a fire exit was blocked by flammable materials, and that the hotel lacked permits for construction work. Plaintiff was later terminated. Because plaintiff failed to prove that an actual violation had occurred, his claim for retaliation would not have withstood summary judgment under the Whistleblower Law in effect at the time … . The Whistleblower Law has since been amended in this respect. It now covers activity “that the employee reasonably believes” violates law or poses a danger to the public (Labor Law § 740 [2] [a] …). …

We now find that the Whistleblower Law has retroactive application because the amendment at issue was remedial in nature … . * * *

… [P]laintiff submitted evidence that the hotel’s general manager, who participated in the decision to terminate plaintiff, told front desk managers about a plan to fill front desk positions “with young and attractive individuals,” naming as examples two front desk agents in their twenties. The hotel’s list of front desk employees hired between 2006 and 2012 shows that plaintiff was the oldest and that the two most recent hires were decades younger.

Plaintiff’s evidence that the hotel had twice attempted to terminate him for reasons found by arbitrators to be unsubstantiated, failed to interview him about the incident giving rise to his third termination, and prohibited testimony favorable to him from being offered at his third arbitration, as well as evidence that the arbitrator found plaintiff’s grievance to be a close case, could lead a reasonable jury to conclude that defendants’ proffered reason for the termination was “false, misleading, or incomplete” … . Therefore, the evidence supports an inference of age discrimination sufficient to reach a jury … . Spiegel v 226 Realty LLC, 2024 NY Slip Op 05076, First Dept 10-15-24

Practice Point: The amendments to the Whistleblower Law (Labor Law 740) were found by the First Department to apply retroactively to plaintiff’s allegations.​

Practice Point: Plaintiff made out a prima facie case of age-discrimination under the state and city Human Rights Law.

 

,

ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT DID NOT PRODUCE AN EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT WITH PLAINTIFF, DEFENDANT DEMONSTRATED IT WAS PLAINTIFF’S SPECIAL EMPLOYER; THEREFORE PLAINTIFF’S PERSONAL INJURY ACTION WAS PRECLUDED BY HIS ELECTION OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BENEFITS (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant was plaintiff’s special employer and plaintiff’s action for personal injury was precluded by his election of workers’ compensation benefits:

Plaintiff testified that he received all his work instructions from an employee of defendant, the building’s manager … . Both plaintiff and the building’s manager testified that they considered the building manager to be plaintiff’s boss or supervisor … .

The evidence thus showed that defendant “supervised, directed and controlled plaintiff’s work” … . Although defendant has produced no contract between itself and the building owner, such a contract is not a prerequisite for special employment status … . Therefore, defendant has established its prima facie case that it was plaintiff’s special employer, which plaintiff has failed to rebut with any issue of fact…. . Payano v Proto Prop. Servs. LLC, 2024 NY Slip Op 04915, First Dept 10-8-2024

Practice Point: Here defendant was deemed plaintiff’s special employer, despite the absence of an employment contract. Therefore plaintiff’s election to receive workers’ compensation benefits precluded his personal injury action against defendant.

 

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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy