You are here: / Second Department

Tag Archive for: Second Department

No “Special Employee” Relationship

In reinstating a jury verdict which determined a special employment relationship between plaintiff and defendant did not exist, the Second Department wrote:

“Workers’ Compensation Law §§ 11 and 29(6) provide that an employee who is entitled to receive compensation benefits may not sue his or her employer in an action at law for the injuries sustained” … . These exclusivity provisions also have been applied to shield from suit persons or entities other than the injured plaintiff’s direct employer …. For purposes of the Workers’ Compensation Law, a person may be deemed to have more than one employer, a general employer and a special employer … . The receipt of Workers’ Compensation benefits from a general employer precludes an employee from commencing a negligence action against a special employer … .

In determining whether a special employment relationship exists, “who controls and directs the manner, details and ultimate result of the employee’s work” is a “significant and weighty feature,” but is not determinative of the issue … . Indeed, “[m]any factors are to be considered when deciding whether such a special employment relationship exists and not one factor is decisive” … . Other principal factors to be considered include “who is responsible for the payment of wages and the furnishing of equipment, who has the right to discharge the employee, and whether the work being performed was in furtherance of the special employer’s or the general employer’s business” … . General employment will be presumed to continue unless there is a “clear demonstration of surrender of control by the general employer and assumption of control by the special employer” ….  Pena v Automatic Data Processing, Inc, 2013 NY Slip Op 02552, 2011-10265, Index No 7894/06, 2nd Dept 4-17-13

 

,

“Special Employee” Status Defined

Finding that the defendant company had not demonstrated as a matter of law that plaintiff was a “special employee” within the meaning of the Workers’ Compensation Law, the Second Department explained:

The protection against lawsuits brought by injured workers which is afforded to employers by Workers’ Compensation Law §§ 11 and 29(6) extends to special employers … . Thus, an injured person who elects to receive Workers’ Compensation benefits from his or her general employer is barred from maintaining a personal injury action against his or her special employer …. “A special employee is described as one who is transferred for a limited time of whatever duration to the service of another. General employment is presumed to continue, but this presumption is overcome upon clear demonstration of surrender of control by the general employer and assumption of control by the special employer” …. The determination of special employment status is usually a question of fact and may only be made as a “matter of law where the particular, undisputed critical facts compel that conclusion and present no triable issue of fact” … . “Although no one [factor] is decisive,’ the question of who controls and directs the manner, details and ultimate result of the employee’s work’ is a significant and weighty feature’ of the analysis” …. The exclusivity provisions of the Workers’ Compensation Law also extend to entities which are alter egos of the injured worker’s employer ….  Abreu v Wel-Made Enters, Inc, 2013 NY Slip 02524, 2012-03166, Index No 36405/07, 2nd Dept 4-17-13

 

,

Denial of Receipt of Service Mandates a Hearing 

In determining the affidavit of service of a complaint in a foreclosure action had been rebutted by the appellant’s sworn denial (requiring a hearing), the Second Department wrote:

Where there is a sworn denial that a defendant was served with process, the affidavit of service is rebutted and the plaintiff must establish jurisdiction at a hearing by a preponderance of the evidence …. In order to warrant a hearing on the issue of service, a defendant must swear to detailed and specific facts to rebut the statements in the process server’s affidavit ….

Here, the Supreme Court erred in determining the motion without first conducting a hearing, as the appellant demonstrated his entitlement to a hearing on the issue of service by his sworn denial, setting forth significant discrepancies between the age and weight of the person allegedly served and the appellant’s actual age and weight at the time of the purported service …. Under these circumstances, the appellant is entitled to a hearing on the issue of whether service was properly effected pursuant to the personal delivery provisions of CPLR 308(1) ….  Emigrant Mtge Co, inc v Westervelt, 2013 NY Slip Op 02536, 2012-08302, Index No 2031/09, 2nd Dept, 4-17-13

 

,

Child’s Out-Of-Court Statements Insufficient to Support Abuse Finding

In affirming Family Court’s determination that the child’s out-of-court statements were not sufficiently corroborated to support a finding of abuse by the father, the Second Department wrote:

A child’s out-of-court statements may provide the basis for a finding of abuse if the statements are sufficiently corroborated by other evidence tending to support the reliability of the child’s statements (see Family Ct Act § 1046[a][vi];… . The Family Court has considerable discretion in deciding whether a child’s out-of-court statements alleging incidents of abuse have been reliably corroborated …, and its findings must be accorded deference on appeal where, as here, the Family Court is primarily confronted with issues of credibility … .  Matter of Nicole G, 2013 NY Slip Op 02576, 2012-07263, 2012-07264, 2nd Dept, 4-17-13

 

,

New York Had Jurisdiction to Modify Pennsylvania Support Order

In finding that Family Court had jurisdiction to modify a Pennsylvania support order, the Second Department wrote:

The Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (hereinafter UIFSA), codified in article 5-B of the Family Court Act, provides, in pertinent part, that a party seeking to modify and/or enforce a child support order issued in another state “shall register that order in this state” (Family Ct Act § 580-609). The parties agree that the support order governing the father’s child support obligations, which was issued by the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County, Pennsylvania … (hereinafter the Pennsylvania support order) was registered in the Family Court, Suffolk County, pursuant to UIFSA …. The Family Court had jurisdiction to modify the Pennsylvania support order, upon registration thereof, since none of the parties resides in Pennsylvania, the petitioner mother does not reside in New York, and the respondent father, at all relevant times, was subject to personal jurisdiction in Suffolk County (see Family Ct Act § 580-611[a][1]). Matter of Gowda v Reddy, 2013 NY Slip Op 02577, 2011-06440, 2nd Dept, 4-17-13

 

Hearing Required for Motion for Resentencing

The Second Department explained the hearing requirement of Criminal Procedure Law 440.46 (re: a motion for resentencing) as follows:

CPL 440.46(3), provides, in pertinent part, that “[t]he provisions of section twenty three of chapter seven hundred thirty eight of the laws of two thousand four shall govern the proceedings on and determination of a motion brought pursuant to this section.” Section 23 of chapter 738 of the Laws of 2004 states, in pertinent part: “The court shall offer an opportunity for a hearing and bring the applicant before it. The court may also conduct a hearing, if necessary, to determine . . . any controverted issue of fact relevant to the issue of sentencing.” The defendant’s presence is not required where the court determines as a matter of law that a defendant is not entitled to relief pursuant to CPL 440.46 …. However, here, the People conceded that the defendant met the statutory requirements for relief pursuant to CPL 440.46, and the question before the court was whether substantial justice dictated that the motion should be denied. Thus, the defendant is entitled to appear before the court and to be given an opportunity to be heard .. . Since the defendant was not brought before the court, and there is no indication that he knowingly, intentionally, and voluntarily relinquished that right …, the order appealed from must be reversed, and the matter remitted to the County Court, Suffolk County, for a new determination of the defendant’s motion, to be made after affording him an opportunity to appear before the court, and, if necessary, conducting a hearing … . People v Allen, 2013 NY slip Op 02586, 2011-11680, Ind No 1087/98, 2nd Dept 4-17-13

 

, ,

Fall After Coverage Ceased Not Covered, Even though Dangerous Condition Alleged to Have Existed Before Termination of Coverage

After the premises was sold it was removed from coverage under a Travelers insurance policy.  Plaintiff slipped and fell on the property ten days after coverage was removed.  Supreme Court determined Travelers was obligated to defend because it was alleged the injury was related to a dangerous condition that existed before the property was sold (when it was insured by Travelers).  In reversing, the Second Department wrote:

Here, the subject insurance policy, read as a whole, clearly and unambiguously provides that the duty to defend and indemnify will attach only to bodily injury caused by an “occurrence” that is covered by the policy and that occurs during the policy period … .Accordingly, Travelers made a prima facie showing of its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by establishing that the bodily injury for which the plaintiff seeks a defense and indemnification occurred after the premises had been removed from coverage … .Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, the … allegation that the accident was caused by a dangerous condition that existed on the premises before it was removed from coverage does not obligate Travelers to defend and indemnify it. Since the policy predicates coverage upon the sustaining of bodily injury during the policy period, it is immaterial that the negligent acts which allegedly caused the occurrence took place while the policy covering the premises was still in effect … .  Jericho Atrium Assoc v Travelers Prop Cas Co of Am, 2013 NY Slip Op 03461, 2nd Dept, 5-15-13

SLIP AND FALL

Only (No-Fault) “N-F 5” Form Triggers 30-Day Period to Deny or Pay a Claim

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Austin, determined that the UB-04 (no-fault form) was not the functional equivalent of the N-F 5 (no-fault form).  Therefore, receipt by the no-fault carrier of the UB-04 form from the heath care provider did not trigger the 30-day period in which a no-fault insurer is required to pay or deny a claim.  Sound Shore Med Ctr v Ne York Cent Mut Fire Ins Co, 2013 NY Slip Op 02390, 2011-04975, Index No 7148/09, 2nd Dept, 4-10-13

 

,

General Contractor’s Liability for Ice and Snow at Work Site/Criteria for Indemnification of General Contractor

In a common law negligence and Labor Law 200 action, the Second Department explained when a general contractor can be held liable for a dangerous condition.  Here the plaintiff was injured when he slipped on ice and snow at the work site.  The general contractor was seeking indemnification under a contract:

“[A] party seeking contractual indemnification must prove itself free from negligence, because to the extent its negligence contributed to the accident, it cannot be indemnified therefor” …. ” Where, as . . . here, a plaintiff’s injuries stem not from the manner in which the work was being performed, but, rather, from a dangerous condition on the premises, a general contractor may be liable in common-law negligence and under Labor Law § 200 if it has control over the work site and actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition'” …. [The general contractor] failed to establish, prima facie, that it lacked control over the work site or notice of the allegedly dangerous condition, thus precluding a finding, as a matter of law, that it was not negligent ….  Mikelatos v Theofilaktidis, 2013 NY Slip Op 02382, 2012-00163, Index No 19488/05, 2nd Dept 4-10-13

 

, , ,

Failure to Allege Negligent Provision of Medical Care in Notice of Claim Required Dismissal of Negligence Cause of Action; Failure to Allege Facts Demonstrating a Custom or Practice of Providing Inadequate Medical Care Required Dismissal of 1983 Causes of Action 

After a trial awarded the plaintiff over $17,000,000, the Second Department reversed determining (1) the negligent provision of medical care cause of action should have been dismissed because it was not included in the notice of claim, and (2) the 1983 causes of action should have been dismissed because they were not adequately pled in the complaint:

Here, the notice of claim failed to set forth any allegations of negligence on the part of the defendants regarding the deprivation of medical treatment to the plaintiff when he was in police custody. Therefore, the Supreme Court should have directed dismissal of so much of the complaint as alleged negligence, due to the plaintiff’s failure to file a proper notice of claim (see General Municipal Law § 50-e[2] … .  * * *

To hold a municipality liable under § 1983 for the conduct of employees below the policymaking level, a plaintiff must show that the violation of his or her constitutional rights resulted from a municipal custom or policy …. Similarly, where claims are asserted against individual municipal employees in their official capacities, there must be proof of a municipal custom or policy in order to permit recovery, since such claims are tantamount to claims against the municipality itself …. Here, the complaint failed to allege any facts from which it could be reasonably inferred that the defendants had a policy or custom of depriving medical treatment to persons in police custody ….  Vargas v City of New York, 2013 NY Slip Op 02391, 2011-02266, 2011-08980, 2011-09609, Index No 33215/07, 2nd Dept, 4-10-13