You are here: / Employment Law
,

“Head Waiter” with Substantial Managerial Duties and “Wine Steward” Whose Duties Did Not Include Serving Customers Were Not Entitled to Share in the Servers’ and Bus Boys’ Tip Pool

The Third Department affirmed the NYS Industrial Board of Appeals’ determination that two senior restaurant employees were not entitled to share in the servers’ and bus boys’ tip pool based upon the nature of their duties—one, the “head waiter,” had substantial managerial duties, and the other, the “wine steward,” had computer-programming duties, assisted customers with the wine list, and had little to do with serving customers.  Labor Law 196-d, as interpreted by the Court of Appeals, looks at the actual duties of employees, as opposed to their titles.  Those who exercise substantial managerial responsibilities, and those who cannot be characterized as “food service workers,” cannot participate in the tip pool:

The governing statute, Labor Law § 196-d, provides that “[n]o employer or his [or her] agent . . . shall demand or accept, directly or indirectly, any part of the gratuities, received by an employee, or retain any part of a gratuity or of any charge purported to be a gratuity for an employee. . . . Nothing in this subdivision shall be construed as affecting . . . the sharing of tips by a waiter with a busboy or similar employee.” Recently, the Court of Appeals clarified that eligibility to participate in a tip pool “‘shall be based upon duties and not titles'” (Barenboim v Starbucks Corp., 21 NY3d 460, 471 [2013], quoting 12 NYCRR 146-2.14 [e]), and the Court held that “employer-mandated tip splitting should be limited to employees who, like waiters and busboys, are ordinarily engaged in personal customer service, a rule that comports with the ‘expectation[s] of the reasonable customer'” (Barenboim v Starbucks Corp., 21 NY3d at 471-472, quoting Samiento v World Yacht Inc., 10 NY3d 70, 79 [2008]; see 12 NYCRR 146-2.16 [b]; 146-3.4 [a]). Consistent with longstanding DOL policy, the Court further observed that “employees who regularly provide direct service to patrons remain tip-pool eligible even if they exercise a limited degree of supervisory responsibility” (Barenboim v Starbucks Corp., 21 NY3d at 472). The Court concluded, however, “that there comes a point at which the degree of managerial responsibility becomes so substantial that the individual can no longer fairly be characterized as an employee similar to general wait staff within the meaning of Labor Law § 196-d” (id. at 473). The Court determined that “the line should be drawn at meaningful or significant authority or control over subordinates” (id.). The Court explained that “[m]eaningful authority might include the ability to discipline subordinates, assist in performance evaluations or participate in the process of hiring or terminating employees, as well as having input in the creation of employee work schedules, thereby directly influencing the number and timing of hours worked by staff as well as their compensation” (id.). Matter of Marzovilla v New York State Indus. Bd. of Appeals, 2015 NY Slip Op 03219, 3rd Dept 4-16-15

 

,

Criteria for Respondeat Superior (Scope of Employment) Liability Succinctly Explained

The Second Department determined summary judgment was properly denied to the defendant employer.  The employee was test driving a competitor’s car in connection with his job at a Mercedes dealership when the employee was involved in an accident.  The Second Department determined the employer failed to demonstrate the employee was not acting within the scope of his employment at the time of the accident.  The court explained the relevant law:

Under the doctrine of respondeat superior, an employer can be held vicariously liable for the torts committed by an employee acting within the scope of the employment” … . “An act is considered to be within the scope of employment if it is performed while the employee is engaged generally in the business of his [or her] employer, or if his [or her] act may be reasonably said to be necessary or incidental to such employment” … . “An employer, however, cannot be held vicariously liable for its employee’s alleged tortious conduct if the employee was acting solely for personal motives unrelated to the furtherance of the employer’s business at the time of the incident … . Zwibel v Midway Automotive Group, 2015 NY Slip Op 03154, 2nd Dept 4-15-15

 

, , ,

Although the Doctor Was Employed by the Hospital, His Employment Did Not Encompass His Medical Practice—Therefore the Hospital Was Not Liable for the Doctor’s Medical Malpractice Under the Doctrine of Respondeat Superior/$6.8 Million Verdict Against the Doctors Based Upon a Delay in Diagnosing Cancer Should Not Have Been Set Aside

The Second Department determined Supreme Court properly dismissed the complaint against the hospital in a medical malpractice case, but improperly set aside the $6.8 million verdict against the doctors.  Plaintiff alleged the doctors caused a 13-month delay in the diagnosis of cancer, which required her to have extensive surgery and reduced her chance of survival.  The suit against the hospital was based upon respondeat superior. However the employment contract between the doctor, Aloia, and the hospital related to duties other than Aloia’s treatment of patients.  Therefore the complaint against the hospital was properly dismissed after trial pursuant to CPLR 4401. The Second Department determined there was sufficient evidence to support plaintiff’s allegations and, therefore, the verdict against the doctors should stand.  “…[T]here was a valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences from which the jury could have rationally concluded that the physician defendants departed from good and accepted medical practice, and that the delay in diagnosing the injured plaintiff’s cancer proximately caused her to have a worsened prognosis or decreased 10-year survival rate:”

To be awarded judgment as a matter of law pursuant to CPLR 4401, a defendant must show that, upon viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, there is no rational basis by which the jury could find for the plaintiff against the moving defendant” … . “The doctrine of respondeat superior renders an employer vicariously liable for a tort committed by an employee while acting within the scope of employment. The general rule is that an employee acts within the scope of his employment when he is acting in furtherance of the duties owed to the employer and where the employer is or could be exercising some degree of control, directly or indirectly, over the employee’s activities” … . Although the issue is usually a factual issue for the jury, “[w]here the proof on the issue of control presents no conflict in evidence or is undisputed, the matter may properly be determined as a matter of law” … .

Here, there was no real dispute as to the employment arrangement between Aloia and [the hospital] as set forth in the clear and unambiguous employment contract … . Aloia’s employment contract permitted him to maintain his private practice in endocrinology, as well as internal medicine and bone densitometry, outside of his employment with [the hospital]. * * *

“A motion for judgment as a matter of law pursuant to CPLR . . . 4404 may be granted only when the trial court determines that, upon the evidence presented, there is no valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences which could possibly lead rational persons to the conclusion reached by the jury upon the evidence presented at trial, and no rational process by which the jury could find in favor of the nonmoving party” … . “In considering such a motion, the trial court must afford the party opposing the motion every inference which may properly be drawn from the facts presented, and the facts must be considered in a light most favorable to the nonmovant'” … . Luna v Spadafora, 2015 NY Slip Op 03134, 2nd Dept 4-15-15

, ,

Where It Was Not Clear that Grand Jury Proceedings in Which a County Employee Was Directed to Appear Involved a Criminal Matter, as Opposed to Civil Misconduct or Neglect, the County Was Required to Pay for the Employee’s Defense Pursuant to Public Officers Law Section 18

The Third Department affirmed Supreme Court’s ruling that petitioner, a county employee, was entitled to attorney’s fees pursuant to Public Officers Law section 18 in connection his appearances in grand jury proceedings.  The county argued that the statute only requires payment for the defense of an employee “in [a] civil action or proceeding” and a grand jury proceeding is criminal in nature.  The Third Department noted that the district attorney would not divulge the nature of the grand jury proceedings and grand juries can be convened to consider noncriminal misconduct or neglect by public employees.  Therefore the employee was entitled to attorney’s fees for his defense:

Respondent failed to demonstrate what the object of the grand jury proceeding was, readily admitting that the District Attorney had not made his “intentions [known] in relation to the potential for criminal charges.” While grand juries may indict a person for a criminal offense (see CPL 1.20 [18]; 190.60 [1]), they are also empowered “to make presentments as to noncriminal misconduct or neglect by public officers and employees” … . Thus, because there is no indication that criminal charges are [*3]actually being contemplated, Supreme Court properly “reject[ed] respondent’s claim that because the [g]rand [j]ury proceeding[s] could have resulted in criminal charges against petitioner, the proceeding[s] [were] not civil in nature” … . “Any other holding would defeat the clear intent of the statute, which insulates public employees from litigation expenses arising out of their employment” … . Matter of Mossman v County of Columbia, 2015 NY Slip Op 03005, 3rd Dept 4-9-15

 

,

Subcontractor Could Not Recover From Property Owners Absent Proof the Owners Consented to Pay the Subcontractor—Owners Hired the General Contractor Who In Turn Hired the Subcontractor

The Second Department determined the property owners were not liable in quasi contract to a subcontractor. The property owners demonstrated the subcontractor was not working for them, but rather worked for the general contractor hired by the owners. The mere fact that the owners consented to the work done by the subcontractor, and were benefitted by it, is not enough to demonstrate unjust enrichment. The subcontractor must show the owners consented to pay the subcontractor for the work:

“[A] property owner who contracts with a general contractor does not become liable to a subcontractor on a quasi contract theory unless it expressly consents to pay for the subcontractor’s performance” … . “The mere fact that the [owners] consented to the improvements and received some benefit from the [subcontractor’s] activities is insufficient to recover on such a theory; the [subcontractor] must also show that it was working for the [owners] when it performed its work resulting in unjust enrichment” … . Sears Ready Mix, Ltd. v Lighthouse Mar., Inc., 2015 NY Slip Op 02955, 2nd Dept 4-8-15

 

, ,

Allegations of Abuse of a Student by a School Bus Monitor Raised Questions of Fact Re: Negligent Supervision of the Student, Negligent Supervision and Training of the Monitor, and Whether the Monitor Was Acting Within the Scope of Her Employment

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the defendant school district’s motion for summary judgment should not have been granted.  The complaint alleged a school bus monitor physically and mentally abused plaintiffs’ son, a student with severe mental disabilities.  The court determined the school did not establish it was unaware of the monitor’s propensity for the alleged misconduct (there was evidence of prior complaints). For that reason, the causes of action for negligent supervision of plaintiffs’ son and negligent supervision and training of the monitor should not have been dismissed. The court further determined the school did not demonstrate the actions taken by the monitor were within the scope of her employment, so the cause of action for negligent supervision and training of the monitor was viable.  The court noted that a negligent supervision and training cause of action would be precluded if the employee were shown to have acted within the scope of her employment, but suit under a “respondeat superior” theory would be possible:

Schools have a duty to adequately supervise the students in their care, and may 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 … . 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 … .

Contrary to the Supreme Court’s determination, the school defendants failed to establish, prima facie, that the school district had no specific knowledge or notice of [the monitor’s] propensity to engage in the misconduct alleged. ***

For the same reason, the Supreme Court erred in directing the dismissal of the plaintiffs’ second cause of action insofar as it alleged negligent supervision and training of [the monitor]. 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 … . * * *

“Generally, where an employee is acting within the scope of his or her employment, the employer is liable for the employee’s negligence under a theory of respondeat superior and no claim may proceed against the employer for negligent hiring, retention, supervision or training”.  … [T]he school defendants did not establish, prima facie, that [the monitor] was acting within the scope of her employment during the alleged incidents. Consequently, the plaintiffs were not precluded from claiming that the school district was negligent in its supervision and training of [the monitor]. Timothy Mc. v Beacon City School Dist., 2015 NY Slip Op 02942, 2nd Dept 4-8-15

 

, , ,

Emails Can Suffice as “Documentary Evidence” to Support a Motion to Dismiss—Here the Documentary Evidence About Aspects of an Employment Agreement that Were In Contention Did Not Utterly Refute the Allegation that an Employment Contract Had Already Been Entered

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Renwick, over a dissent, determined the documentary evidence submitted by the defendant, which dealt with several aspects of an employment agreement that were in contention, did not utterly refute plaintiff’s allegation that an employment contract had already been entered.  Therefore defendant’s motion to dismiss the breach of contract cause of action was properly denied.  The opinion is long and detailed, as is the dissent, and cannot fairly be summarized here.  With respect to what constitutes documentary evidence in this context, the court wrote:

On a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(1), a court is obliged “to accept the complaint’s factual allegations as true, according to plaintiff the benefit of every possible favorable inference, and determining only whether the facts as alleged fit within any cognizable legal theory” … . Moreover, dismissal pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(1) is warranted only if the documentary evidence submitted “utterly refutes plaintiff’s factual allegations” … . If the documentary proof disproves an essential allegation of the complaint, dismissal pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(1) is warranted even if the allegations, standing alone, could withstand a motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action … . * * *

Preliminarily, we reject Supreme Court’s conclusion that correspondence such as the emails here do not suffice as documentary evidence for purposes of CPLR 3211(a)(1). This Court has consistently held otherwise. For example, in Schutty v Speiser Krause P.C. (86 AD3d 484, 484-485 [1st Dept 2011]), this Court found drafts of an agreement and correspondence sufficient for purposes of establishing a defense under the statute. Similarly, in Langer v Dadabhoy (44 AD3d 425, 426 [1st Dept 2007], lv denied 10 NY3d 712 [2008]), this Court found “documentary evidence in the form of emails” to be sufficient to carry the day for a defendant on a CPLR 3211(a)(1) motion. Likewise, in WFB Telecom. v NYNEX Corp. (188 AD2d 257, 259 [1st Dept 1992], lv denied 81 NY2d 709 [1993]), this Court granted a CPLR 3211(a)(1) motion on the basis of a letter from the plaintiff’s counsel that contradicted the complaint. Therefore, there is no blanket rule by which email is to be excluded from consideration as documentary evidence under the statute. Kolchins v Evolution Mkts., Inc., 2015 NY Slip Op 02863, 1st Dept 4-2-15

 

, , ,

Board of Commissioner’s Rejection of Hearing Officer’s Award of Supplemental Benefits Was Supported by Substantial Evidence—“Substantial Evidence” Defined and Review Criteria Explained

The Second Department determined the Board of Commissioners of the Greenville Fire District properly rejected a hearing officer’s recommendation that the petitioner be awarded supplemental benefits pursuant to the General Municipal Law. The court explained its review powers and the evidentiary requirements:

“Judicial review of an administrative determination made after a hearing required by law is limited to whether the determination is supported by substantial evidence” … . “Substantial evidence means more than a mere scintilla of evidence,’ and the test of whether substantial evidence exists in a record is one of rationality, taking into account all the evidence on both sides” … . “When there is conflicting evidence or different inferences may be drawn, the duty of weighing the evidence and making the choice rests solely upon the [administrative agency]. The courts may not weigh the evidence or reject the choice made by [such agency] where the evidence is conflicting and room for choice exists'” … . “Moreover, where there is conflicting expert testimony, in making a General Municipal Law § 20-a determination, a municipality is free to credit one physician’s testimony over that of another'” … . “Thus, even if conflicting medical evidence can be found in the record,’ the municipality’s determination, based on its own expert’s conclusions, may still be supported by substantial evidence” … .

Here, the determination of the Board of Commissioners of the Greenville Fire District (hereinafter the Board), which rejected the recommendation of a hearing officer and denied the petitioner’s application for benefits pursuant to General Municipal Law § 207-a(2), was supported by substantial evidence … . The Board was entitled to make a finding contrary to the hearing officer’s recommendation, as long as substantial evidence supported the determination … . The Board was free to credit the expert of the Greenville Fire District (hereinafter the Fire District) over the petitioner’s expert, as it did, so long as testimony of the Fire District’s expert was consistent and supported by the medical evidence … . Since the Board’s determination was supported by substantial evidence, we confirm the determination and deny that branch of the petition which was to annul the determination … . Matter of Delgrande v Greenville Fire Dist., 2015 NY Slip Op 02474, 2nd Dept 3-25-15

 

, , ,

Longevity-Pay Grievance Not Arbitrable Under Terms of Collective Bargaining Agreement/Analytical Criteria Explained

The Second Department determined that, under the terms of the collective bargaining agreement (CBA), the grievance (re: longevity pay) was not arbitrable.  The court outlined the analytical criteria:

“The determination of whether a dispute between a public sector employer and employee is arbitrable is subject to [a] two-prong test” … . “Initially, the court must determine whether there is any statutory, constitutional, or public policy prohibition against arbitrating the grievance” … . “If there is no prohibition against arbitrating, the court must examine the parties’ collective bargaining agreement and determine if they in fact agreed to arbitrate the particular dispute” … .

Here, the County did not contend that arbitration of the subject matter of the dispute was prohibited by law or public policy. Thus, the only issue is whether the parties agreed to arbitrate the particular dispute … .

“Unlike general labor disputes in the private sector involving arbitration, the intent to arbitrate of parties to a collective bargaining agreement in the field of public employment may not be presumed” … . “Indeed . . . it must be taken, in the absence of clear, unequivocal agreement to the contrary, that the [parties to a collective bargaining agreement] did not intend to refer differences which might arise to the arbitration forum” … .

Here, contrary to the Union’s contention, the CBA did not broadly provide for the arbitration of any grievance that may arise under the CBA … . Rather, as the Supreme Court correctly concluded, the CBA limited the availability of arbitration to specifically enumerated matters … .  Matter of County of Rockland v Corr. Officers Benevolent Assn. of Rockland County, Inc. 2015 NY Slip Op 01798, 2nd Dept 3-4-15

 

, , , ,

Failure to Provide Personal Ropes to Firefighters Is a Proper Basis for a General Municipal Law 205-a Claim

The First Department determined the alleged violation of Labor Law 27-a(3)(a)(1)  was sufficient to support an action by firefighters against the City pursuant to General Municipal Law 205-a.  Firefighters were injured and killed jumping from a building without personal ropes. The failure to provide personal ropes is the basis of the suit.  Governmental immunity did not bar the suit:

The City unavailingly contends that Labor Law § 27-a(3)(a)(1) cannot provide a valid predicate for any General Municipal Law § 205-a claim. However, the statute, known as the Public Employee Safety and Health Act (PESHA), which imposes a general duty on an employer to provide employees with “employment and a place of employment which are free from recognized hazards that are causing or are likely to cause death or serious physical harm to its employees and which will provide reasonable and adequate protection to the lives, safety or health of its employees” (Labor Law § 27-a[3][a][1]), is sufficient since it is ” a well-developed body of law and regulation that imposes clear duties'” … .

Moreover, the City failed to “show that it did not negligently violate any relevant government provision or that, if it did, the violation did not directly or indirectly cause plaintiff’s injuries” … . There is evidence, including testimony and an investigative report, that the failure to issue personal ropes to the firefighters contributed to the injuries and deaths suffered when the firefighters jumped from windows using either no safety devices or a single rope that had been independently purchased by one of the firefighters. The City is also not entitled to dismissal of these claims pursuant to governmental function immunity, since the evidence concerning the removal of existing personal ropes in 2000, and the failure to provide new ropes in the period of more than four years from then until the fire giving rise to these claims, raises issues of fact concerning whether the absence of ropes “actually resulted from discretionary decision-making — i.e., the exercise of reasoned judgment which could typically produce different acceptable results” … . Stolowski v 234 E 178th St LLC, 2015 NY Slip Op 01732, 1st Dept 3-3-15

 

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