Uncategorized – New York Appellate Digest

DEFENDANT HOME CARE AGENCY WAS HIRED BY DEFENDANT HEALTHCARE PLAN AS AN INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR, NOT AN EMPLOYEE; THEREFORE THE HEALTHCARE PLAN WAS NOT LIABLE FOR THE ALLEGED ASSAULT, BATTERY AND NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION COMMITED BY AN EMPLOYEE OF THE HOME CARE AGENCY (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined that Lighthouse, the parent company of GuildNet, a long-term healthcare plan, could not be held liable for the assault, battery and negligence allegedly committed by an employee of Ellison Home Care Companion Agency, which provided healthcare aides who attended to plaintiff’s mother. Plaintiff alleged his mother was assaulted and battered by Shaw, who was employed by Ellison. The contract between GuildNet and Ellison described Ellison as an independent contractor. Because Shaw was not GuldNet’s employee, GuildNet was not vicariously liable for Shaw’s actions:

The assault, battery, and negligence claims should have been dismissed as against GuildNet on the ground that Shaw was not its employee at the time of the underlying events. GuildNet and Ellison’s Participating Provider Agreement expressly defined their relationship as one of independent contractors rather than employer-employee … . The record discloses that GuildNet had only incidental control and general supervisory power over Ellison’s work, which is insufficient to establish an employer-employee relationship … . Further, Ellison admitted that Shaw was its employee and acting within the scope of her employment at the time of the underlying events.

The remaining claim for negligent supervision should also have been dismissed. To the extent that it is predicated on GuildNet’s alleged failure to supervise Shaw despite knowledge of her “propensity for the sort of behavior which caused” [plainiff’s mother’s] injuries and death … , Shaw was not GuildNet’s employee, and the record is bereft of any information that could impute to GuildNet knowledge of her propensity either to commit assault or battery or to ignore a client in distress … . To the extent that the claim is instead predicated on GuildNet’s alleged failure to supervise the care that [plaintiff’s mother] received, namely, by failing to assign a competent agency to assign a competent home health care aide to work with [her], plaintiff has not identified how such a failure proximately caused [her] injuries and death, assuming that GuildNet even had a duty to do so in the first place … . Pander v GuildNet, Inc., 2026 NY Slip Op 00201, First Dep-15-26

Practice Point: A party which hires a party as an “independent contractor” and doesn’t exercise supervisory control over the independent contractor’s work will not be vicariously liable for wrongdoing by the independent contractor.

January 18, 2026

Uncategorized

A STATEMENT OF READINESS (SOR) IS TIMELY FILED WHEN IT IS ELECTRONICALLY FILED BEFORE MIDNIGHT ON THE 90TH DAY OF THE STATUTORY PERIOD; THE TIMELINESS OF THE FILING DOES NOT DEPEND UPON WHEN THE SOR IS SUBSEQUENTLY REVIEWED AND ACCEPTED BY THE CLERK’S OFFICE (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Wilson, determined the People’s electronic filing of the statement of readiness (SOR) after court hours at 5:03 pm on the final day of the statutory 90-day period was timely: The court rejected the argument that the SOR must be reviewed and accepted by the clerk’s office by the end of the 90th day:

Electronic delivery before midnight on the calendar day of the statutory deadline satisfies CPL 30.30 because there is no requirement in CPL 30.30, or our case law, that the People’s readiness be communicated to the court and defense counsel by any particular time of day. * * *

The validity of an SOR does not turn on the speed with which the clerk’s office reviews and accepts filings. People v Licius, 2025 NY Slip Op 05873, CtApp 10-23-25

Practice Point: A statement of readiness (SOR) is timely filed electronically anytime before midnight on the 90th day of the statutory period.

October 25, 2025

Uncategorized

APPELLANT WAS SLOWING DOWN APPROACHING PLAINTIFF’S VEHICLE WHICH WAS STOPPED WHEN APPELLANT WAS STRUCK FROM BEHIND AND PUSHED INTO PLAINTIFF’S VEHICLE; APPELLANT WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment in this rear-end collision case. Appellant was slowing down approach plaintiff’s car in front, which was stopped, when appellant was struck from behind and pushed into plaintiff. Appellant was entitled to summary judgment:

“A ‘defendant moving for summary judgment in a negligence action has the burden of establishing, prima facie, that he or she was not at fault in the happening of the subject accident'” … . “A rear-end collision with a stopped or stopping vehicle establishes a prima facie case of negligence on the part of the operator of the rear vehicle, requiring that operator to come forward with evidence of a nonnegligent explanation for the collision in order to rebut the inference of negligence” … . “‘Evidence that a vehicle was struck in the rear and propelled into the vehicle in front of it may provide a sufficient non-negligent explanation for the collision'” … . The operator of the middle vehicle in a three-vehicle chain-collision accident may establish prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that the middle vehicle was stopped or safely slowing down to a stop behind the lead vehicle when it was struck from behind by the rear vehicle and propelled into the lead vehicle … .

Here, the appellant submitted evidence that demonstrated that his vehicle was struck in the rear by the respondents’ vehicle while his foot was on the brake and he was in the process of slowing down. Since the appellant was in the process of safely slowing down to a stop behind the plaintiffs’ vehicle, which was at a stop, when his vehicle was struck from behind, he established his prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law … . Sherman v Edwards, 2025 NY Slip Op 05713, Second Dept 10-15-25

Practice Point: When a driver is in the process of braking approaching a stopped vehicle and is struck from behind and pushed into the stopped vehicle, the driver is not negligent.

October 15, 2025

Uncategorized

A POLICE OFFICER DESCRIBED STATEMENTS MADE BY THE VICTIMS BUT THE VICTIMS DID NOT TESTIFY; ALTHOUGH DEFENSE COUNSEL MENTIONED THE LACK OF CROSS-EXAMINATION IN A SUFFICIENCY-OF-EVIDENCE ARGUMENT, THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO CONFRONT WITNESSES WAS NOT SPECIFICALLY RAISED; THEREFORE THE CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUE WAS NOT PRESERVED FOR APPEAL; THERE WAS AN EXTENSIVE THREE-JUDGE DISSENT (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, affirming defendant’s conviction, over a three-judge dissent, determined the constitutional “confrontation” issue first raised on appeal had not been preserved. A police officer testified about the identities and physical descriptions of the assailants provided by one of the victims while she was being treated in an ambulance. The victims were expected to testify but never did:

Defendant’s motion at the close of the People’s case did not invoke the Confrontation Clause and the colloquy that took place between defense counsel and the court makes clear that the motion to dismiss was neither intended nor understood to raise a constitutional issue. Moreover, counsel did not invoke or rely on any caselaw dealing with constitutional protections. Instead, counsel made evidentiary arguments regarding the persuasive quality of the prosecution’s proof and, when asked by the court, confirmed that the motion was limited to the sufficiency of the evidence. Further, the timing of defendant’s motion at the close of the People’s case—which defense counsel specifically referred to as “a trial order of dismissal” …—suggests that defendant’s aim was not to challenge testimony of the victim’s statements as violative of his right to confrontation, but simply as failing to meet the evidentiary bar for a prima facie case … . Additionally, counsel repeatedly told the court that his motion was “focus[ed]” on the third-degree robbery charge, demonstrating that the argument was a legal insufficiency one, rather than a Confrontation Clause challenge, which would necessarily apply to all charges with equal force. Contrary to defendant’s argument, the mere reference to a lack of cross-examination was insufficient to alert the court that defendant was making a constitutional argument … . People v Bacon, 2025 NY Slip Op 03692, CtApp 6-18-25

Practice Point: Here the violation of defendant’s constitutional right to confront the witnesses against him was a viable issue because statements made by two witness were described by a police officer but the witnesses did not testify. Although defense counsel mentioned the inability to cross-examine the witnesses in a “sufficiency-of-evidence” argument before the trial court, the constitutional confrontation argument was not specifically raised. The majority, over an extensive three-judge dissent, determined the constitutional issue was not preserved for appeal.

June 20, 2025

DEFENDANT HOME CARE AGENCY WAS HIRED BY DEFENDANT HEALTHCARE PLAN AS AN INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR, NOT AN EMPLOYEE; THEREFORE THE HEALTHCARE PLAN WAS NOT LIABLE FOR THE ALLEGED ASSAULT, BATTERY AND NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION COMMITED BY AN EMPLOYEE OF THE HOME CARE AGENCY (FIRST DEPT).

A STATEMENT OF READINESS (SOR) IS TIMELY FILED WHEN IT IS ELECTRONICALLY FILED BEFORE MIDNIGHT ON THE 90TH DAY OF THE STATUTORY PERIOD; THE TIMELINESS OF THE FILING DOES NOT DEPEND UPON WHEN THE SOR IS SUBSEQUENTLY REVIEWED AND ACCEPTED BY THE CLERK’S OFFICE (CT APP).

APPELLANT WAS SLOWING DOWN APPROACHING PLAINTIFF’S VEHICLE WHICH WAS STOPPED WHEN APPELLANT WAS STRUCK FROM BEHIND AND PUSHED INTO PLAINTIFF’S VEHICLE; APPELLANT WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT (SECOND DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.