Surf & Turf Restaurant Corp. v. Pegasus Agency, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Surf & Turf Restaurant Corp. v. Pegasus Agency, Inc.

175 A.D.2d 802, 573 N.Y.S.2d 191, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10790

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided August 5, 1991·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

— In an action to recover damages for negligence, the plaintiffs appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Wood, J.), entered July 13, 1989, which, upon an order granting the defendants’ motion for judgment during trial as a matter of law, is in favor of the defendants dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

As a general rule, an employer is not liable for the torts of an independent contractor (Whitaker v Norman, 75 NY2d 779). We reject the plaintiffs’ contentions that the trial court should have submitted to the jury the question of whether the relationship between the defendants and Frank Giordano was [803]*803that of an employer/independent contractor or that of master/servant. Based on the evidence adduced at trial, no rational finder of fact could have concluded that the relationship was one of master/servant (see, Dolitsky v Bay Isle Oil Co., 111 AD2d 366). Accordingly, it was appropriate for the trial court to award judgment in favor of the defendants as a matter of law and dismiss the complaint.

The plaintiffs’ remaining contentions are without merit. Kunzeman, J. P., Rosenblatt, Miller and Ritter, JJ., concur.

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

— In an action to recover damages for negligence, the plaintiffs appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Wood, J.), entered July 13, 1989, which, upon an order granting the defendants’ motion for judgment during trial as a matter of law, is in favor of the defendants dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

As a general rule, an employer is not liable for the torts of an independent contractor (Whitaker v Norman, 75 NY2d 779). We reject the plaintiffs’ contentions that the trial court should have submitted to the jury the question of whether the relationship between the defendants and Frank Giordano was [803]*803that of an employer/independent contractor or that of master/servant. Based on the evidence adduced at trial, no rational finder of fact could have concluded that the relationship was one of master/servant (see, Dolitsky v Bay Isle Oil Co., 111 AD2d 366). Accordingly, it was appropriate for the trial court to award judgment in favor of the defendants as a matter of law and dismiss the complaint.

The plaintiffs’ remaining contentions are without merit. Kunzeman, J. P., Rosenblatt, Miller and Ritter, JJ., concur.

Surf & Turf Restaurant Corp. v. Pegasus Agency, Inc., 175 A.D.2d 802, 573 N.Y.S.2d 191, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10790 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

175 A.D.2d 802 (Surf & Turf Restaurant Corp. v. Pegasus Agency, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related