Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
6 New York opinions name it 2 courts 1986–2023 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by New York courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Claim of Carney v. Regal Dry Cleanersgreen2 sentences2023The special errand exception is applicable "if the employer both encouraged the errand and obtained a benefit from the employee's performance of the errand" ( Matter of Neacosia v New York Power Auth. , 85 NY2d at 478 ; see Matter of Gioia v Middletown School Dist. , 48 AD3d 841, 842 [3d Dept 2008]; Matter of Carney v Regal Dry Cleaners , 302 AD2d 702, 703 [3d Dept 2003]). 2005Contrary to claimant’s contention, neither the dual purpose exception nor the special errand exception is applicable in the instant case insofar as there is no evidence that the employer gained a benefit by allowing its employees to leave work to cash their paychecks, or that it otherwise required or encouraged them to do so (see Matter of Neacosia v New York Power Auth., 85 NY2d 471, 477 [1995]; Matter of Carney v Regal Dry Cleaners, 302 AD2d 702, 702-703 [2003]; but see Matter of Flamholtz v Byrde, Richards & Pound, 37 AD2d 645 [1971]; Matter of Watson v American Can Co., 23 AD2d 423 [1965]) | 2 | 2 |
Claim of Neacosia v. New York Power Authoritygreen2 sentences2023The special errand exception is applicable "if the employer both encouraged the errand and obtained a benefit from the employee's performance of the errand" ( Matter of Neacosia v New York Power Auth. , 85 NY2d at 478 ; see Matter of Gioia v Middletown School Dist. , 48 AD3d 841, 842 [3d Dept 2008]; Matter of Carney v Regal Dry Cleaners , 302 AD2d 702, 703 [3d Dept 2003]). 2005Contrary to claimant’s contention, neither the dual purpose exception nor the special errand exception is applicable in the instant case insofar as there is no evidence that the employer gained a benefit by allowing its employees to leave work to cash their paychecks, or that it otherwise required or encouraged them to do so (see Matter of Neacosia v New York Power Auth., 85 NY2d 471, 477 [1995]; Matter of Carney v Regal Dry Cleaners, 302 AD2d 702, 702-703 [2003]; but see Matter of Flamholtz v Byrde, Richards & Pound, 37 AD2d 645 [1971]; Matter of Watson v American Can Co., 23 AD2d 423 [1965]) | 1 | 3 |
Claim of Borgeat v. C & A Bakerygreen1 sentence2023The Board identified the correct standard articulated by the Court of Appeals but misapplied the special errand exception by overlooking the altered temporal scheme of claimant's travel and significance of the work-related activity performed by claimant for the employer's benefit upon being contacted by the employer while on standby ( see Matter of Borgeat v C & A Bakery , 89 AD3d 1296, 1297 [3d Dept 2011]; Matter of Dziedzic v Orchard Park Cent. | 1 | 1 |
Claim of Dziedzic v. Orchard Park Central School Districtgreen1 sentence2023School Dist. , 283 AD2d 878, 878-879 [3d Dept 2001]; Matter of Bump v Central School Dist. | 1 | 1 |
Claim of Gioia v. Middletown School Districtgreen1 sentence2023The special errand exception is applicable "if the employer both encouraged the errand and obtained a benefit from the employee's performance of the errand" ( Matter of Neacosia v New York Power Auth. , 85 NY2d at 478 ; see Matter of Gioia v Middletown School Dist. , 48 AD3d 841, 842 [3d Dept 2008]; Matter of Carney v Regal Dry Cleaners , 302 AD2d 702, 703 [3d Dept 2003]). | 1 | 1 |
Claim of McDonagh v. Troyman Chartering Inc.green1 sentence1995The dual purpose exception may apply when an employee is injured in transit to or from a location off the employer’s premises when the employee’s presence at that location served both a business and personal purpose (see, Matter of Hille v Gerald Records, 23 *476 NY2d 135, supra [employee’s home could be considered a place of employment]; Matter of Mahoney v Stem & Co., 9 NY2d 931 , revg 9 AD2d 843 , supra [out-of-State trip served both personal and business purposes]; see also, Matter of McDonagh v Troyman Chartering, 50 AD2d 301 ). | 1 | 1 |
Claim of Oehley v. Syracuse Boys Clubgreen1 sentence1994Application of the special errand exception hinges upon "whether the special service is suitable and 'sufficiently work related under the circumstances’ ” (Matter of Gray v Lyons Transp., supra, at 986, quoting Matter of Richardson v Fiedler Roofing, 67 NY2d 246, 249 ; see, Matter of Oehley v Syracuse Boys Club, supra, at 827). | 1 | 1 |
Claim of Gray v. Lyons Transportationgreen1 sentence1994Application of the special errand exception hinges upon "whether the special service is suitable and 'sufficiently work related under the circumstances’ ” (Matter of Gray v Lyons Transp., supra, at 986, quoting Matter of Richardson v Fiedler Roofing, 67 NY2d 246, 249 ; see, Matter of Oehley v Syracuse Boys Club, supra, at 827). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Claim of Watson v. American Can Co.neutral1 sentence2005Contrary to claimant’s contention, neither the dual purpose exception nor the special errand exception is applicable in the instant case insofar as there is no evidence that the employer gained a benefit by allowing its employees to leave work to cash their paychecks, or that it otherwise required or encouraged them to do so (see Matter of Neacosia v New York Power Auth., 85 NY2d 471, 477 [1995]; Matter of Carney v Regal Dry Cleaners, 302 AD2d 702, 702-703 [2003]; but see Matter of Flamholtz v Byrde, Richards & Pound, 37 AD2d 645 [1971]; Matter of Watson v American Can Co., 23 AD2d 423 [1965]) | 1 | 1 |
Claim of Flamholtz v. Byrde, Richards & Pound, Inc.green1 sentence2005Contrary to claimant’s contention, neither the dual purpose exception nor the special errand exception is applicable in the instant case insofar as there is no evidence that the employer gained a benefit by allowing its employees to leave work to cash their paychecks, or that it otherwise required or encouraged them to do so (see Matter of Neacosia v New York Power Auth., 85 NY2d 471, 477 [1995]; Matter of Carney v Regal Dry Cleaners, 302 AD2d 702, 702-703 [2003]; but see Matter of Flamholtz v Byrde, Richards & Pound, 37 AD2d 645 [1971]; Matter of Watson v American Can Co., 23 AD2d 423 [1965]) | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Claim of Richardson v. Fiedler Roofing, Inc.
green
2 sentences1995A. The test for determining whether specific activities are within the scope of employment or purely personal is whether the activities are both reasonable and sufficiently work related under the circumstances (Matter of Richardson v Fiedler Roofing, 67 NY2d 246, 249 ; see, Matter of Capizzi v Southern Dist. 1994Application of the special errand exception hinges upon "whether the special service is suitable and 'sufficiently work related under the circumstances’ ” (Matter of Gray v Lyons Transp., supra, at 986, quoting Matter of Richardson v Fiedler Roofing, 67 NY2d 246, 249 ; see, Matter of Oehley v Syracuse Boys Club, supra, at 827). | 2 | 1994–1995 |
Mahoney v. Michaels Stern & Co.
neutral
1 sentence1995The dual purpose exception may apply when an employee is injured in transit to or from a location off the employer’s premises when the employee’s presence at that location served both a business and personal purpose (see, Matter of Hille v Gerald Records, 23 *476 NY2d 135, supra [employee’s home could be considered a place of employment]; Matter of Mahoney v Stem & Co., 9 NY2d 931 , revg 9 AD2d 843 , supra [out-of-State trip served both personal and business purposes]; see also, Matter of McDonagh v Troyman Chartering, 50 AD2d 301 ). | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Claim of Mahoney v. Michaels Stern & Co.
neutral
1 sentence1995The dual purpose exception may apply when an employee is injured in transit to or from a location off the employer’s premises when the employee’s presence at that location served both a business and personal purpose (see, Matter of Hille v Gerald Records, 23 *476 NY2d 135, supra [employee’s home could be considered a place of employment]; Matter of Mahoney v Stem & Co., 9 NY2d 931 , revg 9 AD2d 843 , supra [out-of-State trip served both personal and business purposes]; see also, Matter of McDonagh v Troyman Chartering, 50 AD2d 301 ). | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Claim of Broich v. New York State Union College of Optometry
neutral
1 sentence1995Auth., supra; Matter of Broich v New York State Union Coll. of Optometry, 117 AD2d 868, 869 ). * The question on this appeal *476 is whether the special errand exception applies only if, as the Appellate Division held, the employer has expressly required or directed the employee to perform the errand. | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Lemon v. NYC TR. AUTH.
green
1 sentence1995Auth., supra; Matter of Broich v New York State Union Coll. of Optometry, 117 AD2d 868, 869 ). * The question on this appeal *476 is whether the special errand exception applies only if, as the Appellate Division held, the employer has expressly required or directed the employee to perform the errand. | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Claim of Teles v. Westbury S & S Concrete Inc.
green
1 sentence1986The special errand exception requires some nexus, express or implied, between the journey or the destination itself and the work to be accomplished or some other benefit to the employer (cf. Matter of Teles v Westbury S & S Concrete, 50 AD2d 954 , affd 40 NY2d 902 ; Matter of Munro v County of Suffolk, 49 AD2d 994 ; Matter of Bump v Central School Dist. | 1 | 1986–1986 |
Matter of Bump v. Cent. Sch. Dist. No. 3, Montrose
neutral
1 sentence1986No. 3, 40 AD2d 243 , affd 34 NY2d 577 ). | 1 | 1986–1986 |
Bump v. Central School District No. 3
green
1 sentence1986No. 3, 40 AD2d 243 , affd 34 NY2d 577 ). | 1 | 1986–1986 |
Claim of Munro v. County of Suffolk
neutral
1 sentence1986The special errand exception requires some nexus, express or implied, between the journey or the destination itself and the work to be accomplished or some other benefit to the employer (cf. Matter of Teles v Westbury S & S Concrete, 50 AD2d 954 , affd 40 NY2d 902 ; Matter of Munro v County of Suffolk, 49 AD2d 994 ; Matter of Bump v Central School Dist. | 1 | 1986–1986 |
In re the Claim of Ridgeway
green
1 sentence1986The special errand exception requires some nexus, express or implied, between the journey or the destination itself and the work to be accomplished or some other benefit to the employer (cf. Matter of Teles v Westbury S & S Concrete, 50 AD2d 954 , affd 40 NY2d 902 ; Matter of Munro v County of Suffolk, 49 AD2d 994 ; Matter of Bump v Central School Dist. | 1 | 1986–1986 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.