You are here: / Employment Law
,

DRIVER AND CAR OWNER WERE NOT EMPLOYEES OF CAR SERVICE, CAR SERVICE THEREFORE NOT LIABLE FOR ACCIDENT UNDER DOCTRINE OF RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR.

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendants Tuapanta and Hanif (driver and owner of the car involved in an accident) were not employees of defendant car service, Church Ave. Therefore the car service was not liable to plaintiff passenger:

Here, Church Ave established, prima facie, that Tuapanta and Hanif were independent contractors, not its employees. The evidence submitted by Church Ave showed that it is a licensed livery base station in the business of dispatching for-hire vehicles. Specifically, Church Ave receives calls from customers seeking transportation services and then dispatches such calls to drivers of vehicles affiliated with it. Church Ave further demonstrated that it does not own the vehicles to which it dispatches calls and that it does not provide any services to drivers other than transmitting a customer’s request for transportation services. Drivers are responsible for their own schedules, choosing when to turn on their two-way radios and deciding which dispatches to accept. Drivers are free to provide their services to other car services and they retain all of the monies paid by the customers. Drivers pay Church Ave $100 per week to use the service. Church Ave does not provide a salary to the drivers, nor does it provide them with any tax forms. Drivers are also responsible for maintaining their own insurance. There were no written agreements or meetings between the drivers and Church Ave, nor did Church Ave provide any manuals, policies, or procedures for the drivers outside of establishing prices. Under these circumstances, Church Ave established, prima facie, that it did not exercise sufficient control to give rise to liability under the doctrine of respondeat superior … . Castro-Quesada v Tuapanta, 2017 NY Slip Op 02014, 2nd Dept 3-22-17

EMPLOYMENT LAW (DRIVER AND CAR OWNER WERE NOT EMPLOYEES OF CAR SERVICE, CAR SERVICE THEREFORE NOT LIABLE FOR ACCIDENT UNDER DOCTRINE OF RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR)/RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR (DRIVER AND CAR OWNER WERE NOT EMPLOYEES OF CAR SERVICE, CAR SERVICE THEREFORE NOT LIABLE FOR ACCIDENT UNDER DOCTRINE OF RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR)/INDEPENCENT CONTRACTOR (DRIVER AND CAR OWNER WERE NOT EMPLOYEES OF CAR SERVICE, CAR SERVICE THEREFORE NOT LIABLE FOR ACCIDENT UNDER DOCTRINE OF RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR)/NEGLIGENCE (RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR, DRIVER AND CAR OWNER WERE NOT EMPLOYEES OF CAR SERVICE, CAR SERVICE THEREFORE NOT LIABLE FOR ACCIDENT UNDER DOCTRINE OF RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR)

,

DRIVER AND CAR OWNER WERE NOT EMPLOYEES OF CAR SERVICE, CAR SERVICE THEREFORE NOT LIABLE FOR ACCIDENT UNDER DOCTRINE OF RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR.

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendants Tuapanta and Hanif (driver and owner of the car involved in an accident) were not employees of defendant car service, Church Ave. Therefore the car service was not liable to plaintiff passenger:

Here, Church Ave established, prima facie, that Tuapanta and Hanif were independent contractors, not its employees. The evidence submitted by Church Ave showed that it is a licensed livery base station in the business of dispatching for-hire vehicles. Specifically, Church Ave receives calls from customers seeking transportation services and then dispatches such calls to drivers of vehicles affiliated with it. Church Ave further demonstrated that it does not own the vehicles to which it dispatches calls and that it does not provide any services to drivers other than transmitting a customer’s request for transportation services. Drivers are responsible for their own schedules, choosing when to turn on their two-way radios and deciding which dispatches to accept. Drivers are free to provide their services to other car services and they retain all of the monies paid by the customers. Drivers pay Church Ave $100 per week to use the service. Church Ave does not provide a salary to the drivers, nor does it provide them with any tax forms. Drivers are also responsible for maintaining their own insurance. There were no written agreements or meetings between the drivers and Church Ave, nor did Church Ave provide any manuals, policies, or procedures for the drivers outside of establishing prices. Under these circumstances, Church Ave established, prima facie, that it did not exercise sufficient control to give rise to liability under the doctrine of respondeat superior … . Castro-Quesada v Tuapanta, 2017 NY Slip Op 02014, 2nd Dept 3-22-17

EMPLOYMENT LAW (DRIVER AND CAR OWNER WERE NOT EMPLOYEES OF CAR SERVICE, CAR SERVICE THEREFORE NOT LIABLE FOR ACCIDENT UNDER DOCTRINE OF RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR)/RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR (DRIVER AND CAR OWNER WERE NOT EMPLOYEES OF CAR SERVICE, CAR SERVICE THEREFORE NOT LIABLE FOR ACCIDENT UNDER DOCTRINE OF RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR)/INDEPENCENT CONTRACTOR (DRIVER AND CAR OWNER WERE NOT EMPLOYEES OF CAR SERVICE, CAR SERVICE THEREFORE NOT LIABLE FOR ACCIDENT UNDER DOCTRINE OF RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR)/NEGLIGENCE (RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR, DRIVER AND CAR OWNER WERE NOT EMPLOYEES OF CAR SERVICE, CAR SERVICE THEREFORE NOT LIABLE FOR ACCIDENT UNDER DOCTRINE OF RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR)

,

DRIVER AND CAR OWNER WERE NOT EMPLOYEES OF CAR SERVICE, CAR SERVICE THEREFORE NOT LIABLE FOR ACCIDENT UNDER DOCTRINE OF RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR.

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendants Tuapanta and Hanif (driver and owner of the car involved in an accident) were not employees of defendant car service, Church Ave. Therefore the car service was not liable to plaintiff passenger:

Here, Church Ave established, prima facie, that Tuapanta and Hanif were independent contractors, not its employees. The evidence submitted by Church Ave showed that it is a licensed livery base station in the business of dispatching for-hire vehicles. Specifically, Church Ave receives calls from customers seeking transportation services and then dispatches such calls to drivers of vehicles affiliated with it. Church Ave further demonstrated that it does not own the vehicles to which it dispatches calls and that it does not provide any services to drivers other than transmitting a customer’s request for transportation services. Drivers are responsible for their own schedules, choosing when to turn on their two-way radios and deciding which dispatches to accept. Drivers are free to provide their services to other car services and they retain all of the monies paid by the customers. Drivers pay Church Ave $100 per week to use the service. Church Ave does not provide a salary to the drivers, nor does it provide them with any tax forms. Drivers are also responsible for maintaining their own insurance. There were no written agreements or meetings between the drivers and Church Ave, nor did Church Ave provide any manuals, policies, or procedures for the drivers outside of establishing prices. Under these circumstances, Church Ave established, prima facie, that it did not exercise sufficient control to give rise to liability under the doctrine of respondeat superior … . Castro-Quesada v Tuapanta, 2017 NY Slip Op 02014, 2nd Dept 3-22-17

EMPLOYMENT LAW (DRIVER AND CAR OWNER WERE NOT EMPLOYEES OF CAR SERVICE, CAR SERVICE THEREFORE NOT LIABLE FOR ACCIDENT UNDER DOCTRINE OF RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR)/RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR (DRIVER AND CAR OWNER WERE NOT EMPLOYEES OF CAR SERVICE, CAR SERVICE THEREFORE NOT LIABLE FOR ACCIDENT UNDER DOCTRINE OF RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR)/INDEPENCENT CONTRACTOR (DRIVER AND CAR OWNER WERE NOT EMPLOYEES OF CAR SERVICE, CAR SERVICE THEREFORE NOT LIABLE FOR ACCIDENT UNDER DOCTRINE OF RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR)/NEGLIGENCE (RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR, DRIVER AND CAR OWNER WERE NOT EMPLOYEES OF CAR SERVICE, CAR SERVICE THEREFORE NOT LIABLE FOR ACCIDENT UNDER DOCTRINE OF RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR)

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER BOUNCER WAS ACTING WITHIN THE SCOPE OF HIS EMPLOYMENT WHEN HE THREW PLAINTIFF TO THE GROUND.

The First Department determined defendant bar’s motion for summary judgment dismissing plaintiff’s respondeat superior claim was properly denied. Plaintiff was thrown to the ground by the bar’s bouncer. There was a question of fact whether the bouncer was acting within the scope of his employment:

Plaintiff was assaulted by a security guard/bouncer in the employ of defendant after plaintiff, who had been denied admittance to defendant’s bar because of perceived intoxication, grabbed the baseball cap from the bouncer’s head. Less than 30 seconds elapsed between plaintiff taking the cap and the bouncer throwing plaintiff to the ground, which occurred approximately 10 feet from the entrance to defendant’s bar. On this record, it cannot be concluded, as a matter of law, that the bouncer was acting outside the scope of his employment at the time of the assault … . Salem v MacDougal Rest. Inc., 2017 NY Slip Op 01832, 1st Dept 3-15-17

EMPLOYMENT LAW (NEGLIGENCE, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER BOUNCER WAS ACTING WITHIN THE SCOPE OF HIS EMPLOYMENT WHEN HE THREW PLAINTIFF TO THE GROUND)/RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR (NEGLIGENCE, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER BOUNCER WAS ACTING WITHIN THE SCOPE OF HIS EMPLOYMENT WHEN HE THREW PLAINTIFF TO THE GROUND)

, ,

ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF INJURED BY CO-WORKER, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT’S ACTIONS WERE GROSSLY NEGLIGENT AND THEREFORE NOT WITHIN THE SCOPE OF EMPLOYMENT, ALSO A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER EMPLOYER CONDONED DEFENDANT’S ACTIONS, PLAINTIFF’S SUIT NOT PRECLUDED BY WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW.

The Third Department determined plaintiff could sue in negligence, despite the fact that defendant was a co-worker. Defendant struck plaintiff with a golf club inflicting an injury that required the removal of a testicle. There was a question of fact whether defendant’s actions were grossly negligent or reckless and there not within the scope of defendant’s employment. There was also a question of fact whether the employer condoned defendant’s actions:

There is no dispute that plaintiff and defendant were coemployees, that plaintiff was injured in the course of his employment and that he collected workers’ compensation benefits for his injuries. Pursuant to Workers’ Compensation Law § 29 (6), these benefits are the exclusive remedy for an employee injured “by the negligence or wrong of another in the same employ.” Having the same employer is not synonymous with being “in the same employ” and, to be shielded from liability, a defendant “must himself [or herself] have been acting within the scope of his [or her] employment and not have been engaged in a willful or intentional tort” … . Here, there is no indication that plaintiff was involved in any horseplay … . The differing versions of the event presented by the parties, as well as the two club employees who supported plaintiff’s version, raise genuine questions of fact as to whether defendant intended to strike plaintiff and did so in an excessive manner given the sensitive area of impact. Although defendant was not directly disciplined by the club and resigned to take a new position a few months after the incident, a question of fact also remains as to whether the club condoned defendant’s actions. As such, we conclude that Supreme Court properly determined that questions of fact existed as to whether defendant acted in a “grossly negligent and/or reckless” manner when he swung the golf club shaft and struck plaintiff, as alleged in the complaint … . Montgomery v Hackenburg, 2017 NY Slip Op 01744, 3rd Dept 3-9-17

NEGIGENCE (WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW, ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF INJURED BY CO-WORKER, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT’S ACTIONS WERE GROSSLY NEGLIGENT AND THEREFORE NOT WITHIN THE SCOPE OF EMPLOYMENT, ALSO A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER EMPLOYER CONDONED DEFENDANT’S ACTIONS, PLAINTIFF’S SUIT NOT PRECLUDED BY WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW)/WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW (NEGLIGENCE, (ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF INJURED BY CO-WORKER, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT’S ACTIONS WERE GROSSLY NEGLIGENT AND THEREFORE NOT WITHIN THE SCOPE OF EMPLOYMENT, ALSO A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER EMPLOYER CONDONED DEFENDANT’S ACTIONS, PLAINTIFF’S SUIT NOT PRECLUDED BY WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW)/EMPLOYMENT LAW (WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW, ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF INJURED BY CO-WORKER, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT’S ACTIONS WERE GROSSLY NEGLIGENT AND THEREFORE NOT WITHIN THE SCOPE OF EMPLOYMENT, ALSO A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER EMPLOYER CONDONED DEFENDANT’S ACTIONS, PLAINTIFF’S SUIT NOT PRECLUDED BY WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW)

, ,

TERMINATION OF TEACHER BASED ON HER SUBMISSION OF INACCURATE TIME SHEETS, UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, SHOCKS THE CONSCIENCE.

The First Department, over a two-justice dissent, determined the termination of a teacher for submitting inaccurate time sheets was not warranted. The teacher had an unblemished record and the misconduct was precipitated by Hurricane Sandy, which flooded her home and the home of her disabled student:

Petitioner filled out the time sheets in question in advance of the dates to which those time sheets pertained. Although she did not, in fact, proceed to provide instruction to the disabled student on the days set forth in those time sheets, she submitted the time sheets without correction on a subsequent date. Because petitioner instructed other students on each of the dates in question, she would have received the same salary regardless of how many students she had instructed or how many hours she had spent with them, and thus derived no benefit from her actions. Petitioner’s misconduct is more a matter of lax bookkeeping than implementation of any venal scheme. There was no scheme to defraud or theft of services on petitioner’s part, and the harm to the public and to the DOE was mitigated. * * *

At the hearing, petitioner admitted that she was guilty of submitting reports stating that she had provided instruction to the disabled student on certain dates when she had not done so and that she had reported to various schools and libraries on certain dates when she had not done so. As petitioner acknowledges, her misconduct warrants punishment, since the disabled student was deprived of the services of a teacher for two months. Petitioner does not seek to set aside the findings of misconduct contained in the hearing officer’s opinion, but only to modify the penalty imposed on her. She has acknowledged her error in judgment and has pledged to change her practices and never to repeat the error. There is no evidence that “petitioner could not remedy her behavior” … . Matter of Beatty v City of New York, 2017 NY Slip Op 01628, 1st Dept 3-2-17

 

EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW (TERMINATION OF TEACHER BASED ON HER SUBMISSION OF INACCURATE TIME SHEETS, UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, SHOCKS THE CONSCIENCE)/EMPLOYMENT LAW (EDCUATION-SCHOOL LAW, TERMINATION OF TEACHER BASED ON HER SUBMISSION OF INACCURATE TIME SHEETS, UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, SHOCKS THE CONSCIENCE)/MUNICIPAL LAW (EDCUATION-SCHOOL LAW, TERMINATION OF TEACHER BASED ON HER SUBMISSION OF INACCURATE TIME SHEETS, UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, SHOCKS THE CONSCIENCE)

,

INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE PUBLIC FUNDS WERE USED TO PAY FOR CONSTRUCTION AT THE SARATOGA RACE COURSE, THEREFORE THE PREVAILING WAGE REQUIREMENT OF LABOR LAW 220 DID NOT APPLY.

The Third Department annulled the determination of the Department of Labor finding that the New York Racing Association (NYRA) was required to pay the prevailing wage to a construction contractor working at the Saratoga Race Course. The Third Department held there was insufficient proof public funds were used to pay the contractor:

Labor Law § 220 provides that “[t]he wages to be paid for a legal day’s work . . . to laborers, work[ers] or mechanics upon . . . public works, shall be not less than the prevailing rate of wages” (Labor Law 220 § [3] [a]), defined as the rate paid to “workers, laborers or mechanics in the same trade or occupation in the locality where the work is being performed” (Labor Law § 220 [5]). The NY Constitution further provides that “[n]o laborer, worker or mechanic, in the employ of a contractor or sub-contractor engaged in the performance of any public work, shall . . . be paid less than the rate of wages prevailing in the same trade or occupation in the locality within the state where such public work is to be situated, erected or used” (NY Const, art I, § 17). The Court of Appeals has recently clarified the meaning of a public work: “[f]irst, a public agency must be a party to a contract involving the employment of laborers, workers, or mechanics. Second, the contract must concern a project that primarily involves construction-like labor and is paid for by public funds. Third, the primary objective or function of the work product must be the use or other benefit of the general public” … . W.M. Schultz Constr., Inc. v Musolino, 2017 NY Slip Op 01425, 3rd Dept 2-23-17

LABOR LAW (INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE PUBLIC FUNDS WERE USED TO PAY FOR CONSTRUCTION AT THE SARATOGA RACE COURSE, THEREFORE THE PREVAILING WAGE REQUIREMENT OF LABOR LAW 220 DID NOT APPLY)/EMPLOYMENT LAW INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE PUBLIC FUNDS WERE USED TO PAY FOR CONSTRUCTION AT THE SARATOGA RACE COURSE, THEREFORE THE PREVAILING WAGE REQUIREMENT OF LABOR LAW 220 DID NOT APPLY)/PREVAILING WAGE INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE PUBLIC FUNDS WERE USED TO PAY FOR CONSTRUCTION AT THE SARATOGA RACE COURSE, THEREFORE THE PREVAILING WAGE REQUIREMENT OF LABOR LAW 220 DID NOT APPLY)/NEW YORK RACING ASSOCIATION (INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE PUBLIC FUNDS WERE USED TO PAY FOR CONSTRUCTION AT THE SARATOGA RACE COURSE, THEREFORE THE PREVAILING WAGE REQUIREMENT OF LABOR LAW 220 DID NOT APPLY)

,

JANITOR CAN NOT SUE FOR A SLIP AND FALL CAUSED BY THE CONDITION HE WAS TO REMEDY AS PART OF HIS JOB.

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff janitor could not sue for a slip and fall because the fall was caused by the condition he attempting to remedy as part of his job:

Dismissal of the complaint as against defendants is warranted in this action where plaintiff janitor alleges that he was injured when he slipped on pebbles on the bathroom floor of the building he was hired to clean. It is well established that a maintenance or cleaning worker has no claim at law for injury suffered from a dangerous condition that he was hired to remedy … , and here, plaintiff stated that as part of his job cleaning the bathroom, he frequently removed the pebbles from the floor. Black v Wallace Church Assoc., 2017 NY Slip Op 01480, 1st Dept 2-23-17

NEGLIGENCE (JANITOR CAN NOT SUE FOR A SLIP AND FALL CAUSED BY THE CONDITION HE WAS TO REMEDY AS PART OF HIS JOB)/SLIP AND FALL (JANITOR CAN NOT SUE FOR A SLIP AND FALL CAUSED BY THE CONDITION HE WAS TO REMEDY AS PART OF HIS JOB)/EMPLOYMENT LAW (JANITOR CAN NOT SUE FOR A SLIP AND FALL CAUSED BY THE CONDITION HE WAS TO REMEDY AS PART OF HIS JOB)/JANITORS (JANITOR CAN NOT SUE FOR A SLIP AND FALL CAUSED BY THE CONDITION HE WAS TO REMEDY AS PART OF HIS JOB)

,

DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RIGHTS’ DETERMINATION WITHOUT A HEARING IN THIS DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION MATTER WAS NOT ARBITRARY OR CAPRICIOUS AND HAD A RATIONAL BASIS, SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE ANNULLED THE DETERMINATION.

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the New York State Department of Human Rights’ (SDHR’s) ruling, without a hearing, there was no probable cause to believe petitioner was discriminated or retaliated against because of her disability was not arbitrary or capricious and had a rational basis:

“Where, as here, SDHR renders a determination of no probable cause without holding a hearing, the appropriate standard of review is whether the probable cause determination was arbitrary and capricious or lacked a rational basis’ ” … . We agree with respondent that the court erred in disturbing SDHR’s determination based upon, inter alia, its failure to conduct a hearing. “Courts give deference to SDHR due to its experience and expertise in evaluating allegations of discrimination” … , and “such deference extends to [SDHR’s] decision whether to conduct a hearing” … . SDHR has the discretion to determine the method to be used in investigating a claim, and “a hearing is not required in all cases” … . Inasmuch as “the parties made extensive submissions to [SDHR], petitioner was given an opportunity to present [her] case, and the record shows that the submissions were in fact considered, the determination cannot be arbitrary and capricious merely because no hearing was held’ … . * * *

Here, we conclude that “the conflicting evidence before SDHR did not create a material issue of fact that warranted a formal hearing” … . Rather, we agree with respondent that a rational basis supports SDHR’s determination that, based upon all of the facts and circumstances, there is no factual basis in the evidence sufficient to warrant a cautious person to believe that respondent unlawfully discriminated against petitioner based on her disability ,,, . In addition, SDHR rationally determined that the evidence did not support petitioner’s allegation that respondent subjected her to a hostile work environment … . Finally, we conclude that SDHR’s determination that there was no probable cause to believe that respondent retaliated against petitioner is not arbitrary or capricious, and it has a rational basis in the record … . Matter of McDonald v New York State Div. of Human Rights, 2017 NY Slip Op 01060, 4th Dept 2-10-17

 

EMPLOYMENT LAW (DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION, DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RIGHTS’ DETERMINATION WITHOUT A HEARING IN THIS DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION MATTER WAS NOT ARBITRARY OR CAPRICIOUS AND HAD A RATIONAL BASIS, SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE ANNULLED THE DETERMINATION)/HUMAN RIGHTS LAW (NYS) (EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION, DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION, DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RIGHTS’ DETERMINATION WITHOUT A HEARING IN THIS DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION MATTER WAS NOT ARBITRARY OR CAPRICIOUS AND HAD A RATIONAL BASIS, SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE ANNULLED THE DETERMINATION)/DISABILITIES (EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION, HUMAN RIGHTS LAW, DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RIGHTS’ DETERMINATION WITHOUT A HEARING IN THIS DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION MATTER WAS NOT ARBITRARY OR CAPRICIOUS AND HAD A RATIONAL BASIS, SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE ANNULLED THE DETERMINATION)

,

GLAZIERS ENROLLED IN AN APPRENTICE PROGRAM SHOULD BE PAID AS APPRENTICES EVEN IF THE WORK FOR WHICH THEY ARE PAID IS NOT IN THE SAME TRADE AS THE APPRENTICESHIP PROGRAM.

The Fourth Department, over a dissent, determined the Department of Labor’s interpretation of a statute was wrong and reversed. The case concerned whether glaziers enrolled in an apprentice program should be paid as apprentices even if the work for which they are paid is not in the same trade or occupation as the apprenticeship program:

In reviewing Labor Law § 220 as a whole, we conclude that nothing in that statute establishes any basis for a different interpretation of section 220 (3-e). Rather, we note that the very limitation defendants seek to impose on section 220 (3-e), i.e., a limitation to work in the same trade or occupation, was added to other subdivisions of Labor Law § 220 (see § 220 [3] [a], [b]). When “the Legislature uses unlike terms in different parts of a statute it is reasonable to infer that a dissimilar meaning is intended” … . The fact that the Legislature did not add similar restrictive language to section 220 (3-e) further supports our conclusion that no such restriction was intended, and this Court will not “amend [the] statute by inserting words that are not there” … .

Inasmuch as “the language of [the] statute is clear and unambiguous, [we] must give effect to its plain meaning” … , and we may not “resort to extrinsic material such as legislative history or memoranda” … . We thus conclude that Labor Law § 220 (3-e), by its terms, permits glazier apprentices who are registered, individually, under a bona fide glazier apprenticeship program to work and be paid as apprentices even if the work they are performing is not work in the same trade or occupation as their apprenticeship program. International Union of Painters & Allied Trades v New York State Dept. of Labor, 2017 NY Slip Op 01112. 4th Dept 2-10-17

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