Halpin v. Hernandez, 51 A.D.3d 724 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008). · Go Syfert
Search
Halpin v. Hernandez, 51 A.D.3d 724 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
8 citation events (8 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Barak v. Chen (nyappdiv, 2011-09-13)
Top citers, strongest first. 4 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Barak v. Chen
N.Y. App. Div. · 2011 · confidence medium
Ctr., 260 AD2d at 335 ; Irrutia v Terrero, 227 AD2d at 381 ; cf. Carrion v Orbit Messenger, 82 NY2d 742, 744 [1993]; Halpin v Hernandez, 51 AD3d 724, 725 [2008]; Meyer v Martin, 16 AD3d 632, 634 [2005]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Christ v. Ongori
N.Y. App. Div. · 2011 · confidence medium
Corp., 81 AD3d 622 [2011]; Montanaro v Hossain, 74 AD3d 1157, 1157-1158 [2010]; Anikushina v Moodie, 58 AD3d 501, 501-502 [2009]; Halpin v Hernandez, 51 AD3d 724, 725 [2008]; Meyer v Martin, 16 AD3d 632, 634 [2005]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Montanaro v. Hossain
N.Y. App. Div. · 2010 · confidence medium
However, the evidence submitted by the appellant in support of the motion, including, inter alia, the deposition testimony of Huque and a franchise agreement between Huque and the appellant, did not eliminate all triable issues of fact (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]) as to whether Huque was an independent contractor when the accident occurred (see Carrion v Orbit Messenger, 82 NY2d 742, 744 [1993]; Anikushina v Moodie, 58 AD3d 501, 501-502 [2009]; Halpin v Hernandez, 51 AD3d 724, 724-725 [2008]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Schiffer v. Sunrise Removal, Inc.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2009 · confidence medium
The Keyspan defendants established, prima facie, that Sunrise was acting as an independent contractor at the time of the accident (see Halpin v Hernandez, 51 AD3d 724, 725 [2008]; Meyer v Martin, 16 AD3d 632, 633-634 [2005]; Lane v Lyons, 277 AD2d 428, 428 [2000]).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Jeanne Halpin
v.
Santos A. Hernandez, and Beverage Marketing USA, Inc.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
May 13, 2008.
51 A.D.3d 724
Cited by 7 opinions  |  Published

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendants Beverage Marketing USA, Inc., d/b/a Arizona Beverages, Hornell Brewing Co., Inc., and F & V Distribution Company, LLC, appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Doyle, J), dated April 10, 2007, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against them.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs.

The plaintiff Jeanne Halpin allegedly sustained injuries when a delivery truck labeled “Arizona Iced Tea” collided with the school bus she was driving. The plaintiff and her husband commenced this action against the truck driver and his brother, who owned the truck, and the defendants Beverage Marketing USA, Inc., doing business as Arizona Beverages, Hornell Brewing Co., Inc., and F & V Distribution Company, LLC (hereinafter the appellants), alleging that the appellants were liable for the driver’s negligence under the doctrine of respondeat superior.

The appellants moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against them on the ground that they did not employ the driver and, therefore, were not liable for his negligence. In opposition to their prima facie showing that the driver was an independent contractor when the accident occurred (see Meyer v Martin, 16[*725] AD3d 632, 633-634 [2005]), the plaintiffs and the other defendants raised triable issues of fact regarding the appellants’ control over the manner in which the driver performed his work (see Carrion v Orbit Messenger, 82 NY2d 742 [1993]), by submitting evidence that the driver worked exclusively for the appellants delivering their merchandise in a truck bearing one of their logos, and that one or more of the appellants provided him with all of his customers and a daily list of deliveries, loaded his truck with merchandise before he arrived for work each day, paid him from the gross receipts he collected on their behalf, and restricted him from selling the merchandise to customers other than those of the appellants (see Meyer v Martin, 16 AD3d at 634; Erny v Distribution Sys. of Am., 283 AD2d 391 [2001]; Lane v Lyons, 277 AD2d 428 [2000]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the appellants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against them. Lifson, J.P., Covello, Angiolillo and Leventhal, JJ., concur.