control test in New York

2024Co. of Pittsburgh, Pa., 88 AD3d 506, 508 [1st Dept. 2011]).

2024Co. of Pittsburgh, Pa., 88 AD3d 506, 508 [1st Dept. 2011]).

1988"The exclusive control requirement, as generally understood, is that the evidence 'must afford a rational basis for concluding that the cause of the accident was probably "such that the defendant would be responsible for any negligence connected with it.” ’ (2 Harper and James, Torts § 19.7, at 1086, quoting Prosser, Res Ipsa Loquitur in California, 37 Cal L Rev 183, 201 [1949].) The purpose is simply to eliminate within reason all explanations for the injury other than the defendant’s negligence (see, Prosser and Keeton, Torts § 39, at 248-251 [5th ed]; see, e.g., Zentz v Coca Cola Bottling C

1986The exclusive control requirement, as generally understood, is that the evidence "must afford a rational basis for concluding that the cause of the accident was probably 'such that the defendant would be responsible for any negligence connected with it.’ ” (2 Harper and James, Torts § 19.7, at 1086, quoting Prosser, Res Ipsa Loquitur in California, 37 Cal L Rev 183, 201 [1949].) The purpose is simply to eliminate within reason all explanations for the injury other than the defendant’s negligence (see, Prosser and Keeton, Torts § 39, at 248-251 [5th ed]; see, e.g., Zentz v Coca Cola Bottling Co

2018In cases involving professionals, courts have applied the overall control test, which requires a demonstration that the purported employer exercised control over important aspects of the work performed ( see Matter of Concourse Ophthalmology Assoc. [Roberts] , 60 NY2d 734, 736 [1983]; Matter of Professional Career Ctr., Inc. [Commissioner of Labor] , 105 AD3d 1219 , 1219-1220 [2013]).

2015“Whether an employer-employee relationship exists is a factual determination for the Board, and its decision will be upheld if supported by substantial evidence” (Matter of Hunter [Gannett Co., Inc. —Commissioner of Labor], 125 AD3d 1166, 1167 [2015] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]; see Matter of Concourse Ophthalmology Assoc. [Roberts], 60 NY2d 734, 736 [1983]). “[W]here the details of the work performed are difficult to control because of considerations such as professional responsibilities, courts have applied the overall control test, which requires that the employer exerc

2016LLC [Commissioner of Labor], 109 AD3d 1055 , 1057-1058 [2013]).

2014LLC [Commissioner of Labor], 109 AD3d at 1056-1057).

2021However, where medical professionals are involved and "the details of the work performed are difficult to control because of considerations such as professional and ethical responsibilities, courts have applied the overall control test where substantial evidence of control over important aspects of the services performed other than results or means is sufficient to establish an employer-employee relationship" ( Matter of Mitchell [Nation Co. Ltd Partners-Commissioner of Labor] , 145 AD3d 1404, 1405-1406 [2016] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]; see Matter of Empire State Towing

2016Finally, “where the details of the work performed are difficult to control because of considerations such as professional and ethical *1406 responsibilities,” courts have “applied the overall control test where substantial evidence of control over important aspects of the services performed other than results or means is sufficient to establish an employer-employee relationship” (Matter of Empire State Towing & Recovery Assn., Inc. [Commissioner of Labor], 15 NY3d at 437-438 [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]; see Matter of Columbia Artists Mgt.

2006It is clear, contrary to the majority’s intimation, that exclusive control over an instrumentality affords a basis for liability even if control has been relinquished at the time the instrumentality causes injury (see Corcoran v Banner Super Mkt., 19 NY2d 425, 431 [1967] [“the exclusive control requirement does not necessitate such control at the time of the accident”]) and that the trier of fact can infer, on the basis of circumstantial evidence, that the defective condition should have been found and corrected (Rogers, 32 NY2d at 559 , citing Markel v Spencer, 5 AD2d 400, 403 [1958], affd 5

1982The trend evident to this court is that “The requirement of exclusive possession and control is not an absolutely rigid concept.” (Feblot v New York Times Co., 32 NY2d 486 ; Cameron v Bohack Co., 27 AD2d 362, 364 ; emphasis added.) “The exclusive control requirement is * * * subordinated to its general purpose, that of indicating that it probably was the defendant’s negligence which caused the accident.” (Corcoran v Banner Super Market, 19 NY2d 425, 432 .) “[R]eliance on res ipsa would not require plaintiff to establish exclusive control over the [instrumentality] but merely a degree of domina

2026The common control test, which is utilized in New York ( see , Kreinik v. Showbran Photo Inc. , 400 F.Supp2d 554 [S.D.NY 2005]) focuses upon "the degree of control exercised by the purported employer over the results produced or the means used to achieve the results" ( Bynog v. Cipriani Group Inc. , 1 NY3d 193, 770 NYS2d 692 [2003]).

2026The common control test, which is utilized in New York ( see , Kreinik v. Showbran Photo Inc. , 400 F.Supp2d 554 [S.D.NY 2005]) focuses upon "the degree of control exercised by the purported employer over the results produced or the means used to achieve the results" ( Bynog v. Cipriani Group Inc. , 1 NY3d 193, 770 NYS2d 692 [2003]).

2018In cases involving professionals, courts have applied the overall control test, which requires a demonstration that the purported employer exercised control over important aspects of the work performed ( see Matter of Concourse Ophthalmology Assoc. [Roberts] , 60 NY2d 734, 736 [1983]; Matter of Professional Career Ctr., Inc. [Commissioner of Labor] , 105 AD3d 1219 , 1219-1220 [2013]).

2015“Whether an employer-employee relationship exists is a factual determination for the Board, and its decision will be upheld if supported by substantial evidence” (Matter of Hunter [Gannett Co., Inc. —Commissioner of Labor], 125 AD3d 1166, 1167 [2015] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]; see Matter of Concourse Ophthalmology Assoc. [Roberts], 60 NY2d 734, 736 [1983]). “[W]here the details of the work performed are difficult to control because of considerations such as professional responsibilities, courts have applied the overall control test, which requires that the employer exerc

1985It is "subordinated to its general purpose, that of indicating that it probably was the defendant’s negligence which caused the accident” (see, Corcoran v Banner Super Mkt., 19 NY2d 425, 432 , supra; Payless Discount Centers v 25-29 N. Broadway Corp., 83 AD2d 960, 961 ; see also, Cameron v Bohack Co., 27 AD2d 362, 364 ).

1982The trend evident to this court is that “The requirement of exclusive possession and control is not an absolutely rigid concept.” (Feblot v New York Times Co., 32 NY2d 486 ; Cameron v Bohack Co., 27 AD2d 362, 364 ; emphasis added.) “The exclusive control requirement is * * * subordinated to its general purpose, that of indicating that it probably was the defendant’s negligence which caused the accident.” (Corcoran v Banner Super Market, 19 NY2d 425, 432 .) “[R]eliance on res ipsa would not require plaintiff to establish exclusive control over the [instrumentality] but merely a degree of domina

2022"The exclusive control requirement . . . is that the evidence must afford a rational basis for concluding that the cause of the accident was probably such that the defendant would be responsible for any negligence connected with it" ( Dermatossian , 67 NY2d at 227 [internal quotation marks omitted]).

2022"The purpose is simply to eliminate within reason all explanations for the injury other than the defendant's negligence" ( id. ).

2021However, where medical professionals are involved and "the details of the work performed are difficult to control because of considerations such as professional and ethical responsibilities, courts have applied the overall control test where substantial evidence of control over important aspects of the services performed other than results or means is sufficient to establish an employer-employee relationship" ( Matter of Mitchell [Nation Co. Ltd Partners-Commissioner of Labor] , 145 AD3d 1404, 1405-1406 [2016] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]; see Matter of Empire State Towing

2018Significantly, it has been recognized that "an organization which screens the services of professionals, pays them at a set rate and then offers their services to clients exercises sufficient control to create an employment relationship" ( Matter of Ivy League Tutoring Connection, Inc. [Commissioner of Labor] , 119 AD3d 1260 , 1260 [2014] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]; see Matter of Ritch [Island Tutoring Ctr., Inc.-Commissioner of Labor] , 139 AD3d 1151, 1152 [2016]).

2016Ordered that the decision is reversed, without costs, and matter remitted to the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board for further proceedings not inconsistent with this Court’s decision. * To the extent that we have applied the overall control test to determine whether an employer-employee relationship exists in unemployment insurance cases involving individuals providing security services (see Matter of Lobban [Precinct Sec. & Investigations, Inc.—Commissioner of Labor], 131 AD3d 1294, 1294 [2015]; Matter of Klotz [Blue Perimeter, Inc.—Commissioner of Labor], 127 AD3d 1459, 1460 [2015]; Matter

2016Ordered that the decision is reversed, without costs, and matter remitted to the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board for further proceedings not inconsistent with this Court’s decision. * To the extent that we have applied the overall control test to determine whether an employer-employee relationship exists in unemployment insurance cases involving individuals providing security services (see Matter of Lobban [Precinct Sec. & Investigations, Inc.—Commissioner of Labor], 131 AD3d 1294, 1294 [2015]; Matter of Klotz [Blue Perimeter, Inc.—Commissioner of Labor], 127 AD3d 1459, 1460 [2015]; Matter

2016Ordered that the decision is reversed, without costs, and matter remitted to the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board for further proceedings not inconsistent with this Court’s decision. * To the extent that we have applied the overall control test to determine whether an employer-employee relationship exists in unemployment insurance cases involving individuals providing security services (see Matter of Lobban [Precinct Sec. & Investigations, Inc.—Commissioner of Labor], 131 AD3d 1294, 1294 [2015]; Matter of Klotz [Blue Perimeter, Inc.—Commissioner of Labor], 127 AD3d 1459, 1460 [2015]; Matter

2015“Whether an employer-employee relationship exists is a factual determination for the Board, and its decision will be upheld if supported by substantial evidence” (Matter of Hunter [Gannett Co., Inc. —Commissioner of Labor], 125 AD3d 1166, 1167 [2015] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]; see Matter of Concourse Ophthalmology Assoc. [Roberts], 60 NY2d 734, 736 [1983]). “[W]here the details of the work performed are difficult to control because of considerations such as professional responsibilities, courts have applied the overall control test, which requires that the employer exerc

2015“Whether an employer-employee relationship exists is a factual determination for the Board, and its decision will be upheld if supported by substantial evidence” (Matter of Hunter [Gannett Co., Inc. —Commissioner of Labor], 125 AD3d 1166, 1167 [2015] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]; see Matter of Concourse Ophthalmology Assoc. [Roberts], 60 NY2d 734, 736 [1983]). “[W]here the details of the work performed are difficult to control because of considerations such as professional responsibilities, courts have applied the overall control test, which requires that the employer exerc

2015“Whether an employer-employee relationship exists is a factual determination for the Board, and its decision will be upheld if supported by substantial evidence” (Matter of Hunter [Gannett Co., Inc. —Commissioner of Labor], 125 AD3d 1166, 1167 [2015] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]; see Matter of Concourse Ophthalmology Assoc. [Roberts], 60 NY2d 734, 736 [1983]). “[W]here the details of the work performed are difficult to control because of considerations such as professional responsibilities, courts have applied the overall control test, which requires that the employer exerc

2011Viewing all of the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, as we must on this motion for summary judgment ( see Branham v Loews Orpheum Cinemas, Inc., 8 NY3d 931, 932 [2007]), we cannot say, as did the lower courts, that, as a matter of law, the County relinquished complete control of the recycling center to Metro Waste.

2011Viewing all of the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, as we must on this motion for summary judgment (see Branham, v Loews Orpheum Cinemas, Inc., 8 NY3d 931, 932 [2007]), we cannot say, as did the lower courts, that, as a matter of law, the County relinquished complete control of the recycling center to Metro Waste.

2006Francis Hosp., 89 NY2d 489, 494 [1997]), but must demonstrate that the likelihood of causes other than the defendant’s negligence is “ ‘so reduced that the greater probability lies at defendant’s door’ ” (Dermatossian v New York City Tr.

2006It is clear, contrary to the majority’s intimation, that exclusive control over an instrumentality affords a basis for liability even if control has been relinquished at the time the instrumentality causes injury (see Corcoran v Banner Super Mkt., 19 NY2d 425, 431 [1967] [“the exclusive control requirement does not necessitate such control at the time of the accident”]) and that the trier of fact can infer, on the basis of circumstantial evidence, that the defective condition should have been found and corrected (Rogers, 32 NY2d at 559 , citing Markel v Spencer, 5 AD2d 400, 403 [1958], affd 5