You are here: / Employment Law
, , ,

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

 

, ,

Four-Month Statute of Limitations for Challenging Termination of a Firefighter Runs from the Effective Date of Termination, Not the Date of Notification

The Second Department noted that the four-month statute of limitations for challenging the termination of a probationary firefighter ran from the effective date of the termination, not the date of notification of the termination:

“[A] proceeding against a body or officer must be commenced within four months after the determination to be reviewed becomes final and binding upon the petitioner” (CPLR 217[1]). Where, as here, a governmental employee is not entitled to a hearing in connection with his or her discharge, the limitations period for commencing a CPLR article 78 proceeding to challenge that discharge “runs from the notice of discharge or the effective date of discharge, if later” … .

Here, although the petitioner was notified of the termination of his probationary employment by letter dated September 13, 2013, and was told not to report for further shifts, the notice set the effective termination date of the petitioner’s probationary employment as September 23, 2013. Accordingly, … the statute of limitations began to run on September 23, 2013. Matter of Bruno v Greenville Fire Dist, 2015 NY Slip Op 01630, 2nd Dept 2-25-15

 

,

“Independent Contractor Rule”

The Second Department noted the general rule that one who hires an independent contractor will not be liable for the contractor’s negligence:

“As a general rule, one who hires an independent contractor may not be held liable for the independent contractor’s negligent acts” … . Here, the defendant established, prima facie, that the alleged negligence was committed solely by an independent contractor and that, by reason of the above-described “independent contractor rule,” it could not be held liable … Braun v Star Community Publ Group LLC, 2015 NY Slip Op 01599, 2nd Dept 2-25-15

 

,

Criteria for Common Law Indemnification Explained (Not Met Here)—Property Owner Could Not Seek Indemnification from Independent Contractor Re: Dangerous Condition on the Property

In the context of a personal injury action based upon a dangerous condition, the Second Department explained the criteria for common law indemnification.  Here the dangerous condition was on property built by an independent contractor, Ambrosio, and owned by Wincoma.  Wincoma did not demonstrate it met the criteria for seeking indemnification from Ambrosio:

“The principle of common-law, or implied, indemnification permits one who has been compelled to pay for the wrong of another to recover from the wrongdoer the damages it paid to the injured party” … . “If . . . an injury can be attributed solely to negligent performance or nonperformance of an act solely within the province of [a] contractor, then the contractor may be held liable for indemnification to an owner” … . A party that has actually participated in the wrongdoing is not entitled to indemnification … .

Here, the record demonstrates that Wincoma, the owner of the property where the subject incident occurred, had actual and constructive notice of the allegedly defective condition which caused the plaintiff’s injuries … . Moreover, the record shows that the injury cannot be attributed solely to the negligent performance or non-performance of an act solely within the province of Ambrosio, which was an independent contractor … . Ambrosio built the subject structure approximately one year prior to the accident, the structure was built pursuant to specifications provided by Wincoma, and the record shows that those specifications were not “patently defective” … . Consequently, Wincoma could not be entitled to common-law indemnification from Ambrosio for any damages that may be assessed against it in this action … . Rappel v Wincoma Homeowners Assn, 2015 NY Slip Op 01434, 2nd Dept 2-18-15

 

,

Questions of Fact Raised Re: Whether Property Owner Liable for Work Done by Independent Contractor

The Second Department determined questions of fact existed about the liability of the property owner (Eastern) for work done by an independent contractor (Affraim).  Infant plaintiff was injured when he fell through a glass panel near the entrance of defendant’s building. The panel had been installed by an independent contractor.  The court explained the relevant analytical criteria:

“The general rule is that a party who retains an independent contractor . . . is not liable for the independent contractor’s negligent acts” … . One of the exceptions to this general rule is the “nondelegable duty exception, which is applicable where the party is under a duty to keep premises safe'” … . In such instances, the party “is vicariously liable for the fault of the independent contractor because a legal duty is imposed on it which cannot be delegated” … .

Here, the Eastern defendants demonstrated, prima facie, their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by presenting evidence that the glass in the fixed panel was installed by an independent contractor in compliance with the applicable City and State building codes, and that the condition of the glass did not otherwise violate their duty to maintain the premises in a reasonably safe condition … . However, in opposition, the plaintiffs’ submissions, including expert affidavits, raised a triable issue of fact as to whether Affraim violated City and State building codes by failing to install safety glass in the panel … , and whether the Eastern defendants thereby breached a nondelegable duty to maintain the premises in a reasonably safe condition … . Horowitz v 763 E Assoc Inc, 2015 NY Slip Op 01417, 2nd Dept 2-18-15

 

,

Defendant-Employer’s Motion for Summary Judgment Properly Denied—Defendant Did Not Submit Proof that Defendant’s Employee Was Not Acting Within the Scope of Employment When Employee Removed and Disseminated Photos from Plaintiff’s Cell Phone and Defendant Did Not Submit Proof Demonstrating It Did Not Know of the Employee’s Propensity for Such Conduct

The Second Department determined the motion for summary judgment made by defendant-employer, R & K,  was properly denied. The plaintiff alleged that defendant’s employee, Press, removed and disseminated photographs of her from a cell phone plaintiff had left with defendant for repair.  The Second Department noted that an employer can be liable for the negligence and the intentional torts of an employee, provided that the employee was acting within the scope of employment.  The court explained the criteria for vicarious liability under the doctrine of respondeat superior as well as direct liability for negligent hiring and supervision:

“Pursuant to the doctrine of respondeat superior, an employer can be held vicariously liable for torts committed by an employee acting within the scope of employment” … . “Intentional torts as well as negligent acts may fall within the scope of employment” … . Liability will not attach for torts committed by an employee acting solely for personal motives unrelated to the furtherance of the employer’s business …, or for conduct which could not have been reasonably expected by the employer … .

Here, R & K failed to establish, prima facie, that it could not be held vicariously liable for Press’s alleged acts, as it submitted no transcripts of testimony or affidavits from any of its employees, or business records, to support its contention that Press was acting outside the scope of his employment when he accessed and disseminated photographs from the plaintiff’s cell phone. * * *

“To establish a cause of action based on negligent hiring and supervision, it must be shown that the employer knew or should have known of the employee’s propensity for the conduct which caused the injury” … . R & K failed to submit any proof establishing that it did not know and should not have known about Press’s alleged propensity to engage in the conduct at issue here, or that it was not negligent in hiring Press … . Hoffman v Verizon Wireless Inc, 2015 NY Slip Op 01416, 2nd Dept 2-18-15

 

, ,

No Notice of Claim Requirement for Human Rights Law Action Against City/Questions of Fact About City’s Motivation for Allowing Firefighter Promotion Eligibility Lists to Expire Precluded Summary Judgment in Favor of White Firefighters Alleging Reverse, Disparate Treatment Racial Discrimination

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Lippman, with concurring and concurring/dissenting opinions, determined that summary judgment should not have been granted to white firefighters who sued the city alleging the promotion eligibility lists were improperly allowed to expire resulting in reverse, disparate treatment racial discrimination. The court first held that the notice of claim requirement for actions against a municipality (General Municipal Law 50-i) does not apply to actions brought under the Human Rights Law.  The court went on to hold that questions of fact about the city’s motivation for allowing the promotion eligibility lists to expire precluded summary judgment:

…[W]e reject the City’s argument for dismissal on the basis of plaintiffs’ failure to file a notice of claim prior to commencement of this action. General Municipal Law § 50-e (1) (a) requires service of a notice of claim within 90 days after the claim arises “[i]n any case founded upon tort where a notice of claim is required by law as a condition precedent to the commencement of an action or special proceeding against a public corporation.” General Municipal Law § 50-i (1) precludes commencement of an action against a city “for personal injury, wrongful death or damage to real or personal property alleged to have been sustained by reason of the negligence or wrongful act of such city,” unless a notice of claim has been served in compliance with section 50-e. The Appellate Division departments addressing the issue have determined that the General Municipal Law does not encompass a cause of action based on the Human Rights Law and “[s]ervice of a notice of claim is therefore not a condition precedent to commencement of an action based on the Human Rights Law in a jurisdiction where General Municipal Law §§ 50-e and 50-i provide the only notice of claim criteria” … . Human rights claims are not tort actions under 50-e and are not personal injury, wrongful death, or damage to personal property claims under 50-i. Nor do we perceive any reason to encumber the filing of discrimination claims. Accordingly, we conclude that there is no notice of claim requirement here. * * *

In this case, the issue of liability turns on the factual circumstances behind the City’s actions, the strength of its justifications and its motivations. It is undisputed that the plaintiffs here made out a prima facie case of discrimination, as the City chose not to promote white candidates from the eligibility list. The burden then shifted to the City to prove that it had “a strong basis in evidence to justify its race conscious action” … . * * *

Based on the record before us, we conclude that whether the City had “a strong basis in evidence to believe it [would] be subject to disparate-impact liability” at the time that it terminated the promotion eligibility lists … raises issues of fact that cannot be determined on motions for summary judgment.  Margerum v City of Buffalo, 2015 NY Slip Op 01378, CtApp 2-17-15

 

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