You are here: / Employment Law
,

NON-SOLICITATION AGREEMENT WAS THE PRODUCT OF OVERREACHING AND WILL NOT BE ENFORCED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined Supreme Court correctly found, after a bench trial, that a non-solicitation agreement between defendant Johnson and her employers (plaintiffs) should not be enforced because the agreement was the product of overreaching:

​

Plaintiffs had the burden of demonstrating that, in imposing the terms of the non-solicitation covenant, they did not engage in “overreaching, coercive use of dominant bargaining power, or other anti-competitive misconduct, but ha[d] in good faith sought to protect a legitimate interest” … , and they did not meet that burden. The evidence established that the non-solicitation covenant was imposed as a condition of Johnson’s employment, after she had left her former employer and her position there had been filled, which belies plaintiffs’ contention that Johnson’s bargaining position was equal or superior to theirs… . In addition, plaintiffs required all employees, regardless of position, to sign an agreement containing a non-solicitation covenant as a condition of employment, which undercuts plaintiffs’ contention that the covenant was necessary to protect their legitimate business interests … . Finally, the fact that the agreement provides for partial enforcement of the non-solicitation covenant, which is clearly over-broad under New York law, casts doubt on plaintiffs’ good faith in imposing the covenant on Johnson … . Brown & Brown, Inc. v Johnson, 2018 NY Slip Op 00728, Fourth Dept 2-2-18

EMPLOYMENT LAW (NON-SOLICITATION AGREEMENT WAS THE PRODUCT OF OVERREACHING AND WILL NOT BE ENFORCED (FOURTH DEPT))/CONTRACT LAW (NON-SOLICITATION AGREEMENT WAS THE PRODUCT OF OVERREACHING AND WILL NOT BE ENFORCED (FOURTH DEPT))/NON-SOLICITATION AGREEMENT (EMPLOYMENT LAW, NON-SOLICITATION AGREEMENT WAS THE PRODUCT OF OVERREACHING AND WILL NOT BE ENFORCED (FOURTH DEPT))/CONTRACT LAW (NON-SOLICITATION AGREEMENT WAS THE PRODUCT OF OVERREACHING AND WILL NOT BE ENFORCED (FOURTH DEPT))

,

PLAINTIFF’S SEXUAL ORIENTATION DISCRIMINATION AND RETALIATION CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST THE NYPD SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF HAD ROUTINELY PASSED PSYCHOLOGICAL EXAMS IN THE PAST, THE NYPD FOUND HIM PSYCHOLOGICALLY UNFIT (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the sexual-orientation-based employment discrimination and retaliation causes of action (pursuant to the NYS and NYC Human Rights Law) should not have been dismissed. Plaintiff had once worked as an NYPD police officer and subsequently for several other law enforcement entitles, and had always passed the psychological tests. Plaintiff’s application to work once again for the NYPD was denied, based on a finding plaintiff was psychologically unfit. Plaintiff had, in 2007, brought a discrimination action against the NYPD and that prior action was cited by the NYPD as evidence of plaintiff’s inability to deal with stress (which supported the retaliation cause of action):

​

The parties do not dispute that plaintiff has sufficiently pleaded the first three elements of discrimination, to wit, plaintiff is part of a protected class due to his sexual orientation, he was qualified for the position of police officer, having previously served for seven years before voluntarily resigning, and he was treated adversely by having a psychological hold placed on his application and then being found to have failed the evaluation. … Plaintiff alleged that he had passed six prior law enforcement psychological evaluations, in New York, California, Arizona, and Missouri, before defendants deemed him psychologically unfit for a position with the NYPD, and that in finding others psychologically fit defendants had given preferential treatment to similarly situated heterosexual applicants. Plaintiff further alleged that he was the only applicant whose application had been placed on a psychological review for over 15 months.

​

… [Plaintiff] submitted the psychological report of his independent clinical psychologist demonstrating his fitness to serve. …

The foregoing, taken together, and affording plaintiff the benefit of every favorable inference, establishes prima facie that defendants discriminated against plaintiff on account of his sexual orientation in finding him psychologically unfit to serve. Harrington v City of New York, 2018 NY Slip Op 00381, First Dept 1-23-18

EMPLOYMENT LAW (DISCRIMINATION, PLAINTIFF’S SEXUAL ORIENTATION DISCRIMINATION AND RETALIATION CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST THE NYPD SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF HAD ROUTINELY PASSED PSYCHOLOGICAL EXAMS IN THE PAST, THE NYPD FOUND HIM PSYCHOLOGICALLY UNFIT (FIRST DEPT))/HUMAN RIGHTS LAW (EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION, PLAINTIFF’S SEXUAL ORIENTATION DISCRIMINATION AND RETALIATION CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST THE NYPD SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF HAD ROUTINELY PASSED PSYCHOLOGICAL EXAMS IN THE PAST, THE NYPD FOUND HIM PSYCHOLOGICALLY UNFIT (FIRST DEPT))/SEXUAL ORIENTATION (EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION, PLAINTIFF’S SEXUAL ORIENTATION DISCRIMINATION AND RETALIATION CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST THE NYPD SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF HAD ROUTINELY PASSED PSYCHOLOGICAL EXAMS IN THE PAST, THE NYPD FOUND HIM PSYCHOLOGICALLY UNFIT (FIRST DEPT))/EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION (SEXUAL ORIENTATION, HUMAN RIGHTS LAW, PLAINTIFF’S SEXUAL ORIENTATION DISCRIMINATION AND RETALIATION CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST THE NYPD SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF HAD ROUTINELY PASSED PSYCHOLOGICAL EXAMS IN THE PAST, THE NYPD FOUND HIM PSYCHOLOGICALLY UNFIT (FIRST DEPT))/RETALIATION (EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION, HUMAN RIGHTS LAW, PLAINTIFF’S SEXUAL ORIENTATION DISCRIMINATION AND RETALIATION CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST THE NYPD SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF HAD ROUTINELY PASSED PSYCHOLOGICAL EXAMS IN THE PAST, THE NYPD FOUND HIM PSYCHOLOGICALLY UNFIT (FIRST DEPT))

, ,

STATE DIVISION OF HUMAN RIGHTS’ FINDING THAT PETITIONER WAS NOT SUBJECT TO A HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT AND WAS NOT CONSTRUCTIVELY DISCHARGED BECAUSE OF HER SEX SUPPORTED BY THE RECORD, LIMITED COURT REVIEW POWERS EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the findings of the NYS Division of Human Rights (SDHR) in this sex discrimination action should not be disturbed. The SDHR found that petitioner was not subjected to a hostile work environment and was not constructively discharged because of her sex. The Second Department explained the court’s limited review power in this context:

​

The scope of judicial review under the Human Rights Law is extremely narrow and is confined to the consideration of whether the determination of the SDHR is supported by substantial evidence in the record… . Substantial evidence “means such relevant proof as a reasonable mind may accept as adequate to support a conclusion or ultimate fact . . . More than seeming or imaginary, it is less than a preponderance of the evidence, overwhelming evidence or evidence beyond a reasonable doubt” … .. “Courts may not weigh the evidence or reject [the SDHR’s] determination where the evidence is conflicting and room for choice exists” … . Here, there is substantial evidence in the record to support the Commissioner’s determination that the petitioner was not subjected to a hostile work environment or constructively discharged because of her sex … . Matter of Leippe v Gerald J. Wilkoff, Inc., 2018 NY Slip Op 00294, Second Dept 1-17-18

EMPLOYMENT LAW (STATE DIVISION OF HUMAN RIGHTS’ FINDING THAT PETITIONER WAS NOT SUBJECT TO A HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT AND WAS NOT CONSTRUCTIVELY DISCHARGED BECAUSE OF HER SEX SUPPORTED BY THE RECORD, LIMITED COURT REVIEW POWERS EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT))/HUMAN RIGHTS LAW (EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION, STATE DIVISION OF HUMAN RIGHTS’ FINDING THAT PETITIONER WAS NOT SUBJECT TO A HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT AND WAS NOT CONSTRUCTIVELY DISCHARGED BECAUSE OF HER SEX SUPPORTED BY THE RECORD, LIMITED COURT REVIEW POWERS EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT))/ADMINISTRATIVE LAW (EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION, STATE DIVISION OF HUMAN RIGHTS’ FINDING THAT PETITIONER WAS NOT SUBJECT TO A HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT AND WAS NOT CONSTRUCTIVELY DISCHARGED BECAUSE OF HER SEX SUPPORTED BY THE RECORD, LIMITED COURT REVIEW POWERS EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT))/EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION  (STATE DIVISION OF HUMAN RIGHTS’ FINDING THAT PETITIONER WAS NOT SUBJECT TO A HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT AND WAS NOT CONSTRUCTIVELY DISCHARGED BECAUSE OF HER SEX SUPPORTED BY THE RECORD, LIMITED COURT REVIEW POWERS EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT))

, ,

OFF DUTY POLICE OFFICER WAS NOT ACTING UNDER COLOR OF LAW WHEN HIS WEAPON DISCHARGED AND KILLED PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT, 42 USC 1983 CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST MUNICIPALITY PROPERLY DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined that the 42 USC 1983 cause of action against the municipality was properly dismissed. Plaintiff's decedent was killed when a handgun handled by an off-duty police officer (Pileggi) went off. The off-duty officer was convicted of manslaughter. The cause of action against the municipality was dismissed because there was no evidence the off-duty officer was acting under color of law and there was no policy which encouraged the reckless actions of the off-duty officer:

Where the conduct complained of was committed by an off-duty police officer, a constitutional violation may be found if, for instance, the officer, albeit off-duty, nonetheless is engaged in some activity arguably invoking the real or apparent power of the police department, or is engaged in the performance of duties prescribed generally for police officers… .. Here, the amended complaint alleged only, in the most conclusory fashion, that Pileggi was “acting under the color of law” when the shooting occurred. Since nothing in the amended complaint suggested that Pileggi identified himself or was recognizable as a police officer, or was otherwise engaged in any activity arguably invoking the real or apparent power of the police department, the seventh cause of action was fatally defective. In turn, because the plaintiffs failed sufficiently to allege that Pileggi was acting under color of state law, it follows that there was no factual basis upon which to hold the defendants liable under [Monell v New York City Dept. of Social Servs., 436 US 658] … .

In any event, even if the amended complaint had properly pleaded that Pileggi was acting under color of state law and not engaged in purely personal pursuits at the time of the shooting, the seventh cause of action was also fatally defective in that it failed to allege specific facts supporting the plaintiffs' contention that the defendants had a policy or custom of encouraging or sanctioning the type of reckless behavior that led to the shooting … . Everett v Eastchester Police Dept., 2018 NY Slip Op 00129, Second Dept 1-10-18

MUNICIPAL LAW (POLICE OFFICERS, WRONGFUL DEATH, OFF DUTY POLICE OFFICER WAS NOT ACTING UNDER COLOR OF LAW WHEN HIS WEAPON DISCHARGED AND KILLED PLAINTIFF'S DECEDENT, 42 USC 1983 CAUSE OF ACTION PROPERLY DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT))/NEGLIGENCE (MUNICIPAL LAW, POLICE OFFICERS, NEGLIGENCE,  OFF DUTY POLICE OFFICER WAS NOT ACTING UNDER COLOR OF LAW WHEN HIS WEAPON DISCHARGED AND KILLED PLAINTIFF'S DECEDENT, 42 USC 1983 CAUSE OF ACTION PROPERLY DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT))/42 USC 1983 (MUNICIPAL LAW, POLICE OFFICERS, NEGLIGENCE, OFF DUTY POLICE OFFICER WAS NOT ACTING UNDER COLOR OF LAW WHEN HIS WEAPON DISCHARGED AND KILLED PLAINTIFF'S DECEDENT, 42 USC 1983 CAUSE OF ACTION PROPERLY DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT))/EMPLOYMENT LAW (MUNICIPAL LAW, POLICE OFFICERS, OFF DUTY POLICE OFFICER WAS NOT ACTING UNDER COLOR OF LAW WHEN HIS WEAPON DISCHARGED AND KILLED PLAINTIFF'S DECEDENT, 42 USC 1983 CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST MUNICIPALITY PROPERLY DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT))/POLICE OFFICERS (OFF DUTY POLICE OFFICER WAS NOT ACTING UNDER COLOR OF LAW WHEN HIS WEAPON DISCHARGED AND KILLED PLAINTIFF'S DECEDENT, 42 USC 1983 CAUSE OF ACTION PROPERLY DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT))

,

QUESTION OF FACT RAISED ABOUT WHETHER THE PROFFERED REASON FOR PLAINTIFF’S TERMINATION WAS PRETEXTUAL, PLAINTIFF WAS ON MEDICAL LEAVE BECAUSE OF BRAIN TUMORS, EMPLOYER’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Andrias, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff's employment discrimination action pursuant to the New York City Human Rights Law should not have been dismissed. Plaintiff had raised a question of fact whether the proffered reason for her termination was pretextual. Plaintiff, who suffered from brain tumors, was on medical leave when she was told by her employer she needed to apply for disability benefits from the Hartford (an insurer). Although plaintiff tried to apply for the disability benefits, the company allegedly based her termination on her failure to timely obtain the disability benefits:

Defendant argues that it met its prima facie burden of establishing a nondiscriminatory motive for its actions by offering evidence that it terminated plaintiff's employment because she did not promptly file a disability claim with the Hartford, as directed. Defendant maintains that although the Hartford may have given plaintiff confusing information about whether she could file a claim later, that phone call was not reported to defendant, and that when defendant decided to terminate her employment, it relied on the Hartford's representation that no claim had been filed. However, when viewed in the light most favorable to plaintiff, the evidence in the record raises a material issue of fact as to whether defendant's stated reason for terminating her employment was a pretext and whether defendant failed to engage in an interactive process and reasonable accommodation analysis prior thereto … . Watson v Emblem Health Servs., 2018 NY Slip Op 00123, First Dept 1-9-18

EMPLOYMENT LAW (DISCRIMINATION, QUESTION OF FACT RAISED ABOUT WHETHER THE PROFFERED REASON FOR PLAINTIFF'S TERMINATION WAS PRETEXTUAL, PLAINTIFF WAS ON MEDICAL LEAVE BECAUSE OF BRAIN TUMORS, EMPLOYER'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT))/DISCRIMINATION (EMPLOYMENT LAW,  QUESTION OF FACT RAISED ABOUT WHETHER THE PROFFERED REASON FOR PLAINTIFF'S TERMINATION WAS PRETEXTUAL, PLAINTIFF WAS ON MEDICAL LEAVE BECAUSE OF BRAIN TUMORS, EMPLOYER'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT))/HUMAN RIGHTS LAW (NYC)  (EMPLOYMENT LAW,  QUESTION OF FACT RAISED ABOUT WHETHER THE PROFFERED REASON FOR PLAINTIFF'S TERMINATION WAS PRETEXTUAL, PLAINTIFF WAS ON MEDICAL LEAVE BECAUSE OF BRAIN TUMORS, EMPLOYER'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT))

,

THREE CASES IN WHICH THE APPELLATE DIVISIONS FOUND THE TERMINATION OF TEACHERS TOO SEVERE A PUNISHMENT REVERSED, APPELLATE DIVISIONS HAD EXCEEDED THEIR AUTHORITY TO REVIEW ADMINISTRATIVE PENALTIES (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a brief memorandum decision supplemented by an extensive memorandum by Judge Rivera, reversed the appellate divisions in three cases involving teachers who were terminated from their employment in administrative proceedings. In all three cases, the appellate divisions had found termination too severe a punishment. The Court of Appeals reinstated the punishment (termination) and explained in depth how the appellate divisions had exceeded their statutory powers for review of administrative determinations:

From the Concurring Memorandum: Termination of employment for the misconduct evinced in these three appeals is neither irrational nor such an affront to one's sense of fairness as to shock the conscience. This Court has repeatedly explained that under this “rigorous” standard, an administrative sanction may not be disturbed unless it is “disproportionate to the misconduct . . . of the individual, or the harm or risk of harm to the agency or the public” … . Whether a punishment may deter future misconduct and reflects societal standards given the nature of the offense are appropriate factors for judicial consideration. A difference of opinion as to the appropriate penalty, however, “does not provide a basis for vacating the arbitral award or refashioning the penalty” … . As in these appeals, dismissal is not a shocking response to cases in which a teacher encourages cheating, falsifies documents leaving a student without educational services, or crosses the line of proper student-teacher interactions by making sexually suggestive inquiries about a student's relatives. Matter of Bolt v New York City Dept. of Educ., 2018 NY Slip Op 00090, Ct App 1-9-18

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW (EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW, THREE CASES IN WHICH THE APPELLATE DIVISIONS FOUND THE TERMINATION OF TEACHERS TOO SEVERE A PUNISHMENT REVERSED, APPELLATE DIVISIONS HAD EXCEEDED THEIR AUTHORITY TO REVIEW ADMINISTRATIVE PENALTIES (CT APP))/EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW (ADMINISTRATIVE LAW, THREE CASES IN WHICH THE APPELLATE DIVISIONS FOUND THE TERMINATION OF TEACHERS TOO SEVERE A PUNISHMENT REVERSED, APPELLATE DIVISIONS HAD EXCEEDED THEIR AUTHORITY TO REVIEW ADMINISTRATIVE PENALTIES (CT APP))/EMPLOYMENT LAW (EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW, ADMINISTRATIVE LAW,  THREE CASES IN WHICH THE APPELLATE DIVISIONS FOUND THE TERMINATION OF TEACHERS TOO SEVERE A PUNISHMENT REVERSED, APPELLATE DIVISIONS HAD EXCEEDED THEIR AUTHORITY TO REVIEW ADMINISTRATIVE PENALTIES (CT APP))/TEACHERS (ADMINISTRATIVE LAW,  EMPLOYMENT LAW, THREE CASES IN WHICH THE APPELLATE DIVISIONS FOUND THE TERMINATION OF TEACHERS TOO SEVERE A PUNISHMENT REVERSED, APPELLATE DIVISIONS HAD EXCEEDED THEIR AUTHORITY TO REVIEW ADMINISTRATIVE PENALTIES (CT APP))

, ,

PLAINTIFF ENTITLED TO CONSIDERATION WHETHER ENFORCING THE AGREEMENT TO ARBITRATE THIS EMPLOYMENT DISPUTE WOULD, BECAUSE OF THE COSTS INVOLVED, EFFECTIVELY PRECLUDE PLAINTIFF FROM PURSUING HIS CLAIM (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff was entitled to consideration whether compliance with the agreement to arbitrate would, because of the costs involved, effectively prohibit plaintiff from pursing his claim alleging untimely payment of wages:

… [T]he court erred in failing to address plaintiff’s contention that, because of his financial circumstances, requiring him to arbitrate, and to do so in Florida, would preclude him from pursuing his claims (Matter of Brady v Williams Capital Group, L.P., 14 NY3d 459 [2010]). Acknowledging the “strong state policy favoring arbitration [] and the equally strong policy requiring the invalidation of such agreements when they contain terms that could preclude a litigant from vindicating his/her statutory rights in the arbitral forum” … , the Court of Appeals in Brady held, as here relevant, that,

“in this context, the issue of a litigant’s financial ability [to arbitrate] is to be resolved on a case-by-case basis and that the inquiry should at minimum consider the following questions: (1) whether the litigant can pay the arbitration fees and costs; (2) what is the expected cost differential between arbitration and litigation in court; and (3) whether the cost differential is so substantial as to deter the bringing of claims in the arbitral forum. Although a full hearing is not required in all situations, there should be a written record of the findings pertaining to a litigant’s financial ability” … .

Applying the foregoing standard, we hold that plaintiff has made a preliminary showing that the fee sharing and venue provisions in the arbitration agreement have the effect of precluding him from pursuing his statutory wage claim in arbitration …

… While Brady did not expressly address this issue, by extension of its logic, the risk of plaintiff having to pay defendant’s attorneys’ fees, if it prevails, may be taken into account in considering whether the total costs associated with arbitration preclude plaintiff from pursuing his claim in the arbitral forum. Adams v Kent Sec. of N.Y., Inc., 2017 NY Slip Op 09274, First Dept 12-28-17

 

, ,

CITY NOT LIABLE FOR ACTIONS OF OFF-DUTY POLICE OFFICER WHO WAS ACTING OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF HIS EMPLOYMENT DURING THE ENCOUNTER WITH PLAINTIFF (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that an off-duty police officer (Rodriguez) working security at a bar was not acting within the scope of his employment during the encounter with plaintiff. Therefore the causes of action against the city based upon vicarious liability or respondeat superior, alleging negligence, assault and false imprisonment, should have been dismissed:​

​

… [W]here there are no material disputed facts and there is no question that the employee’s acts fall outside the scope of his or her employment, the determination is one of law for the court and not one of fact for the jury … . A municipality may be held vicariously liable for the conduct of a member of its police department if the officer was engaged in the performance of police business… . Here, in support of their motion, the City defendants established that Rodriguez was at all relevant times off-duty, was engaged in other employment as a private citizen, was not in uniform, did not arrest plaintiff, and did not display his police badge. We thus conclude that the City defendants met their prima facie burden of establishing that Rodriguez was not acting within the scope of his employment as a police officer during the encounter with plaintiff … . In opposition, plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact … . We reject plaintiff’s contention that Rodriguez’s identification of himself as a police officer during the encounter raised an issue of fact sufficient to defeat the motion with respect to the issue of scope of employment … . Maloney v Rodriguez, 2017 NY Slip Op 08993, Fourth Dept 12-22-17

 

NEGLIGENCE (CITY NOT LIABLE FOR ACTIONS OF OFF-DUTY POLICE OFFICER WHO WAS ACTING OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF HIS EMPLOYMENT DURING THE ENCOUNTER WITH PLAINTIFF (FOURTH DEPT))/MUNICIPAL LAW (CITY NOT LIABLE FOR ACTIONS OF OFF-DUTY POLICE OFFICER WHO WAS ACTING OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF HIS EMPLOYMENT DURING THE ENCOUNTER WITH PLAINTIFF (FOURTH DEPT))/EMPLOYMENT LAW (MUNICIPAL LAW, CITY NOT LIABLE FOR ACTIONS OF OFF-DUTY POLICE OFFICER WHO WAS ACTING OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF HIS EMPLOYMENT DURING THE ENCOUNTER WITH PLAINTIFF (FOURTH DEPT))/POLICE OFFICERS (NEGLIGENCE, MUNICIPAL LAW, CITY NOT LIABLE FOR ACTIONS OF OFF-DUTY POLICE OFFICER WHO WAS ACTING OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF HIS EMPLOYMENT DURING THE ENCOUNTER WITH PLAINTIFF (FOURTH DEPT))

, ,

ALTHOUGH THE EMPLOYEE OF THE OWNER OF THE TRUCK WAS NOT ACTING WITHIN THE SCOPE OF HIS EMPLOYMENT AT THE TIME OF THE ACCIDENT, THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE EMPLOYEE WAS USING THE TRUCK WITH THE COMPANY’S PERMISSION, RENDERING THE COMPANY LIABLE PURSUANT TO VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW 388 (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, over a two-justice dissent, determined the complaint against the company which owned a truck which struck plaintiff should not have been dismissed. The driver of the truck, an employee, was using it for personal purposes (driving bar to bar) at the time of the accident and was not acting within the scope of his employment. The company was not liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior. However, there was a question of fact whether the driver was using the truck with the company’s permission at the time of the accident, rendering the company liable pursuant to the Vehicle and Traffic Law:

​

“It is well settled that Vehicle and Traffic Law § 388 (1) creates a strong presumption that the driver of a vehicle is operating it with the owner’s permission and consent, express or implied, and that presumption continues until rebutted by substantial evidence to the contrary” … . Even in the case of substantial evidence to the contrary, the issue of implied permission is ordinarily a question of fact for a jury … . The Court of Appeals … went so far as to state that “uncontradicted statements of both the owner and the driver that the driver was operating the vehicle without the owner’s permission will not necessarily warrant a court in awarding summary judgment for the owner” … . Baker v Lisconish, 2017 NY Slip Op 08943, Fourth Dept 12-22-17

 

NEGLIGENCE (TRAFFIC ACCIDENT, EMPLOYMENT LAW, VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW, ALTHOUGH THE EMPLOYEE OF THE OWNER OF THE TRUCK WAS NOT ACTING WITHIN THE SCOPE OF HIS EMPLOYMENT AT THE TIME OF THE ACCIDENT, THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE EMPLOYEE WAS USING THE TRUCK WITH THE COMPANY’S PERMISSION, RENDERING THE COMPANY LIABLE PURSUANT TO VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW 388 (FOURTH DEPT))/EMPLOYMENT LAW (TRAFFIC ACCIDENT, RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR, ALTHOUGH THE EMPLOYEE OF THE OWNER OF THE TRUCK WAS NOT ACTING WITHIN THE SCOPE OF HIS EMPLOYMENT AT THE TIME OF THE ACCIDENT, THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE EMPLOYEE WAS USING THE TRUCK WITH THE COMPANY’S PERMISSION, RENDERING THE COMPANY LIABLE PURSUANT TO VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW 388 (FOURTH DEPT))/VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW (TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, PERMISSIVE USE, ALTHOUGH THE EMPLOYEE OF THE OWNER OF THE TRUCK WAS NOT ACTING WITHIN THE SCOPE OF HIS EMPLOYMENT AT THE TIME OF THE ACCIDENT, THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE EMPLOYEE WAS USING THE TRUCK WITH THE COMPANY’S PERMISSION, RENDERING THE COMPANY LIABLE PURSUANT TO VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW 388 (FOURTH DEPT))/RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR (TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS,  ALTHOUGH THE EMPLOYEE OF THE OWNER OF THE TRUCK WAS NOT ACTING WITHIN THE SCOPE OF HIS EMPLOYMENT AT THE TIME OF THE ACCIDENT, THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE EMPLOYEE WAS USING THE TRUCK WITH THE COMPANY’S PERMISSION, RENDERING THE COMPANY LIABLE PURSUANT TO VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW 388 (FOURTH DEPT))/TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS (RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR, VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW,  ALTHOUGH THE EMPLOYEE OF THE OWNER OF THE TRUCK WAS NOT ACTING WITHIN THE SCOPE OF HIS EMPLOYMENT AT THE TIME OF THE ACCIDENT, THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE EMPLOYEE WAS USING THE TRUCK WITH THE COMPANY’S PERMISSION, RENDERING THE COMPANY LIABLE PURSUANT TO VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW 388 (FOURTH DEPT))/PERMISSIVE USE (TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW, ALTHOUGH THE EMPLOYEE OF THE OWNER OF THE TRUCK WAS NOT ACTING WITHIN THE SCOPE OF HIS EMPLOYMENT AT THE TIME OF THE ACCIDENT, THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE EMPLOYEE WAS USING THE TRUCK WITH THE COMPANY’S PERMISSION, RENDERING THE COMPANY LIABLE PURSUANT TO VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW 388 (FOURTH DEPT))

, ,

SUPREME COURT DOES NOT HAVE THE POWER TO CONSIDER THE MERITS OF AN ARBITRATION AWARD, AWARD CONFIRMED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the arbitrator had not exceeded her authority in interpreting the collective bargaining agreement (CBA) to require full medical coverage for retiring firefighters. The Fourth Department explained the limited review powers of a court with respect to arbitration awards:

​

“It is well settled that judicial review of arbitration awards is extremely limited”… . The court must vacate an arbitration award where the arbitrator exceeds a limitation on his or her power as set forth in the CBA … . The court, however, lacks the authority to “examine the merits of an arbitration award and substitute its judgment for that of the arbitrator simply because it believes its interpretation would be the better one”… .

Here, the arbitrator merely interpreted and applied the provisions of the CBA, as she had the authority to do. The court is powerless to set aside that interpretation merely because the court disagrees with it, and we may not countenance such an action. In any event, we conclude that the plain language of the CBA supports the arbitrator’s reasoning. Matter of Lackawanna Professional Fire Fighters Assn., Local 3166, IAFF, AFL-CIO (City of Lackawanna), 2017 NY Slip Op 08994, Fourth Dept 12-22-17

 

ARBITRATION (SUPREME COURT DOES NOT HAVE THE POWER TO CONSIDER THE MERITS OF AN ARBITRATION AWARD, AWARD CONFIRMED (FOURTH DEPT))/EMPLOYMENT LAW (COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT, (SUPREME COURT DOES NOT HAVE THE POWER TO CONSIDER THE MERITS OF AN ARBITRATION AWARD, AWARD CONFIRMED (FOURTH DEPT))/MUNICIPAL LAW (COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT, (SUPREME COURT DOES NOT HAVE THE POWER TO CONSIDER THE MERITS OF AN ARBITRATION AWARD, AWARD CONFIRMED (FOURTH DEPT))/CONTRACT LAW (COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT, SUPREME COURT DOES NOT HAVE THE POWER TO CONSIDER THE MERITS OF AN ARBITRATION AWARD, AWARD CONFIRMED (FOURTH 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