Victor Carrion v. Orbit Messenger, Inc.

New York Court of Appeals

Victor Carrion v. Orbit Messenger, Inc.

621 N.E.2d 692, 82 N.Y.2d 742, 602 N.Y.S.2d 325, 1993 N.Y. LEXIS 3050

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedSeptember 14, 1993

StatusPublished

Cited by31 cases

This text of 621 N.E.2d 692 (Victor Carrion v. Orbit Messenger, Inc.) 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

Victor Carrion v. Orbit Messenger, Inc., 621 N.E.2d 692, 82 N.Y.2d 742, 602 N.Y.S.2d 325, 1993 N.Y. LEXIS 3050 (N.Y. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs, and the certified question answered in the affirmative.

*744 It is well settled that whether an operator of a delivery vehicle is an agent, potentially rendering the principal liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior, or is an independent contractor, is a question for the trier of fact (see, Johnson v R. T. K. Petroleum Co., 289 NY 101, rearg denied 289 NY 646; Bratt v Midland Asphalt Corp., 8 NY2d 963, 965). Here, plaintiffs’ pleadings allege that the driver of the truck worked exclusively for defendant, that he was required to use defendant’s name and forms when performing work for defendant and to return all defendant’s receipts and job tickets. Defendant supplied the truck driver with workers’ compensation insurance, paid him, on a weekly basis, 57% of defendant’s gross billings, and supplied him with a check cashing card, signed by defendant’s representative, on which he was described as an "employee”. Because plaintiffs have submitted sufficient proof to raise a question with respect to the nature of the relationship between the tortfeasor and his alleged principal, summary judgment is not warranted.

Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Simons, Titone, Hancock, Jr., Bellacosa, Smith and Levine concur in memorandum.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.4 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.4), order affirmed, etc.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs, and the certified question answered in the affirmative.

*744 It is well settled that whether an operator of a delivery vehicle is an agent, potentially rendering the principal liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior, or is an independent contractor, is a question for the trier of fact (see, Johnson v R. T. K. Petroleum Co., 289 NY 101, rearg denied 289 NY 646; Bratt v Midland Asphalt Corp., 8 NY2d 963, 965). Here, plaintiffs’ pleadings allege that the driver of the truck worked exclusively for defendant, that he was required to use defendant’s name and forms when performing work for defendant and to return all defendant’s receipts and job tickets. Defendant supplied the truck driver with workers’ compensation insurance, paid him, on a weekly basis, 57% of defendant’s gross billings, and supplied him with a check cashing card, signed by defendant’s representative, on which he was described as an "employee”. Because plaintiffs have submitted sufficient proof to raise a question with respect to the nature of the relationship between the tortfeasor and his alleged principal, summary judgment is not warranted.

Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Simons, Titone, Hancock, Jr., Bellacosa, Smith and Levine concur in memorandum.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.4 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.4), order affirmed, etc.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

621 N.E.2d 692, 82 N.Y.2d 742, 602 N.Y.S.2d 325, 1993 N.Y. LEXIS 3050, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/victor-carrion-v-orbit-messenger-inc-ny-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack