You are here: / Employment Law
,

DISCRIMINATION AND RETALIATION CAUSES ACTION, AS WELL AS A FAMILY AND MEDICAL LEAVE ACT CAUSE OF ACTION, SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED.

The Second Department, modifying Supreme Court determined the discrimination and retaliation causes of action under the New York State Human Rights Law (NYSHRL) and the New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL) should not have been dismissed. In addition, the court determined the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) cause of action should not have been dismissed on the ground the defendant companies had less than 50 employees because there was question of fact whether single or joint employer doctrine should apply:

​

Here, the defendants established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the first and second causes of action insofar as they alleged discrimination and retaliation in violation of the NYSHRL and the NYCHRL, and the third cause of action pursuant to the NYSHRL and the NYCHRL, by proffering, among other things, a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the plaintiff’s termination. The defendants cited, among other things, the plaintiff’s disciplinary record, which included numerous infractions. The plaintiff, however, raised triable issues of fact, inter alia, on the issue of pretext, by referring to his good disciplinary record for the first three years of his employment, followed by frequent citations for disciplinary issues which commenced only after he allegedly began complaining of discriminatory treatment on the basis of association, ancestry, and religion. Under these circumstances, the Supreme Court erred in determining that the plaintiff failed to raise triable issues of fact regarding so much of his first through third causes of action as alleged discrimination and retaliation in violation of the NYSHRL and NYCHRL.  Macchio v Michaels Elec. Supply Corp., 2017 NY Slip Op 02636, 2nd Dept 4-5-17

EMPLOYMENT LAW (DISCRIMINATION AND RETALIATION CAUSES ACTION, AS WELL AS A FAMILY AND MEDICAL LEAVE ACT CAUSE OF ACTION, SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED)/HUMAN RIGHTS LAW (EMPLOYMENT LAW, DISCRIMINATION AND RETALIATION CAUSES ACTION, AS WELL AS A FAMILY AND MEDICAL LEAVE ACT CAUSE OF ACTION, SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED)/DISCRIMINATION (EMPLOYMENT LAW, DISCRIMINATION AND RETALIATION CAUSES ACTION, AS WELL AS A FAMILY AND MEDICAL LEAVE ACT CAUSE OF ACTION, SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED)/FAMILY AND MEDICAL LEAVE ACT (EMPLOYMENT LAW, DISCRIMINATION AND RETALIATION CAUSES ACTION, AS WELL AS A FAMILY AND MEDICAL LEAVE ACT CAUSE OF ACTION, SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED)

, ,

TERMINATION OF OUT OF WORK SCHOOL DISTRICT EMPLOYEE PURSUANT TO THE CIVIL SERVICE LAW IS NOT ARBITRABLE, PETITION TO STAY ARBITRATION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED.

The Second Department determined the school district’s petition to stay arbitration should have been granted. A school district employee, Turco, was injured on the job and was out of work on Workers’ Compensation leave for more than a year. The district terminated his employment pursuant to Civil Service Law 71. Turco filed a grievance with his union alleging the termination violated the collective bargaining agreement. The Second Department held that the matter was not arbitrable because of the conflict between the agreement and the statute:

Despite the general policy favoring the resolution of disputes by arbitration, some matters, because of competing considerations of public policy, cannot be heard by an arbitrator. “If there is some statute, decisional law or public policy that prohibits arbitration of the subject matter of dispute, . . . the claim is not arbitrable'” … . Indeed, the public policy exception can be invoked as a threshold issue to preclude arbitration pursuant to CPLR 7503 … . “Preemptive judicial intervention in the arbitration process is warranted where the arbitrator [cannot] grant any relief without violating public policy” … . * * *

Here, the district terminated Turco’s employment pursuant to Civil Service Law § 71. Section 71 provides that a public employer may terminate an employee who is absent due to an occupational disability for a cumulative period of one year if the employee remains physically or mentally unable to return to work … . Matter of Enlarged City Sch. Dist. of Middletown N.Y. v Civil Serv. Empls. Assn., Inc., 2017 NY Slip Op 02421, 2nd Dept 3-29-17

 

,

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)

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