Lazo v. Mak's Trading Co.

644 N.E.2d 1350, 84 N.Y.2d 896, 620 N.Y.S.2d 794, 1994 N.Y. LEXIS 3390
CourtNew York Court of Appeals
DecidedOctober 27, 1994
StatusPublished
Cited by35 cases

This text of 644 N.E.2d 1350 (Lazo v. Mak's Trading Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Lazo v. Mak's Trading Co., 644 N.E.2d 1350, 84 N.Y.2d 896, 620 N.Y.S.2d 794, 1994 N.Y. LEXIS 3390 (N.Y. 1994).

Opinions

[897]*897OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.

Plaintiff, the operator of a tractor trailer, delivered a shipment of rice to defendant, a wholesale and retail grocer in New York City. Defendant grocer engaged three neighborhood men to help unload the trailer. During the unloading, one of the three individuals got into an altercation with plaintiff, resulting in personal injuries.

The alleged tortfeasor came and went as he and his companion pleased, worked at their own convenience, were free to hold other employment, were never placed on defendant’s payroll, received no fringe benefits, and had no taxes withheld from the flat rate, single payment for all three. Defendant paid $80 in cash to one of the three workers and left it up to them to divide the payment. While they had performed other unloading tasks for defendant previously, they did so on a random, on-inquiry-for-work basis. In the circumstances of this case, defendant did not exercise actual or constructive control over the performance and manner in which the work of these unloaders was performed. We agree with the Appellate Division that this record does not support the existence of any question of fact that could lead to the conclusion that defendant supervised these day laborers’ activities for vicarious liability purposes. Also, in the circumstances of this case, there is no duty to conduct background inquiries in the selection of individuals for this as-needed task.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Gaudreau v. Cucuzzo
2025 NY Slip Op 03046 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2025)
Green v. Fasyal Kabir Mohammad Himon
2017 NY Slip Op 4777 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)
Weinfeld v. HR Photography, Inc.
2017 NY Slip Op 3038 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)
Rose v. Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Co.
220 F. Supp. 3d 363 (E.D. New York, 2016)
Raja v. Big Geyser, Inc.
2016 NY Slip Op 8059 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)
Marzec v. City of New York
136 A.D.3d 410 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)
Bizjak v. Gramercy Capital Corp.
95 A.D.3d 469 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)
Edwards v. Publishers Circulation Fulfillment, Inc.
268 F.R.D. 181 (S.D. New York, 2010)
Anikushina v. Moodie
58 A.D.3d 501 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
Goodwin v. Comcast Corp.
42 A.D.3d 322 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)
Tesillo v. Emergency Physician Associates, Inc.
376 F. Supp. 2d 327 (W.D. New York, 2005)
General Motors Acceptance Corp. v. Vucich
15 A.D.3d 106 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)
Marino v. Vega
12 A.D.3d 329 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)
Bynog v. Cipriani Group, Inc.
802 N.E.2d 1090 (New York Court of Appeals, 2003)
Leeds v. D.B.D. Services, Inc.
309 A.D.2d 666 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2003)
Caruso-Goleeke v. Accurate Fence
304 A.D.2d 783 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2003)
Rokicki v. 24 Hour Courier Service, Inc.
294 A.D.2d 555 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)
Smith v. Pizza Hut of America, Inc.
289 A.D.2d 48 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001)
Aydelotte v. BQE Racquetball Club, Inc.
283 A.D.2d 600 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
644 N.E.2d 1350, 84 N.Y.2d 896, 620 N.Y.S.2d 794, 1994 N.Y. LEXIS 3390, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lazo-v-maks-trading-co-ny-1994.