From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Shah v. Lokhandwala

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 12, 1999
265 A.D.2d 396 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)

Opinion

Argued June 18, 1999

October 12, 1999

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (DiNoto, J.).


ORDERED that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, and that branch of the cross motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against the respondent is denied.

The plaintiff Dipti Shah was injured in a car accident while a passenger in a vehicle being driven by the defendant Mehjabin Lokhandwala, a real estate agent for the defendant Prudential Long Island Realty (hereinafter Prudential). The Supreme Court granted the cross motion of Prudential for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against it. We reverse.

The Supreme Court correctly observed that Prudential could not be held liable under a vicarious liability theory for any negligence on the part of Mehjabin Lokhandwala if she was an independent contractor rather than an employee of Prudential ( see, Chainani v. Board of Educ. of City of N.Y. 87 N.Y.2d 370; Kleeman v. Rheingold, 81 N.Y.2d 270). However, this record presents triable issues of fact, inter alia, as to whether the defendant Mehjabin Lokhandwala was an independent contractor ( see, Murphy v. ERA United Realty, 251 A.D.2d 469). The mere fact that Mehjabin Lokhandwala's contract with Prudential designates her as an independent contractor is not dispositive of the issue ( see, Matter of Gallagher v. Houlihan Lawrence Real Estate, 259 A.D.2d 853 [3rd Dept., Mar. 11, 1999]). The deposition and documentary evidence submitted show, inter alia, that Prudential real estate agents were required to work exclusively for Prudential, to attend weekly sales meetings, to use only business cards bearing the Prudential name, to comply with Prudential's dress code and other office procedures, and to keep Prudential's office manager apprised of all transactions ( see, Murphy v. ERA United Realty, supra; see also, Matter of 12 Cornelia St. v. Ross, 56 N.Y.2d 895).

BRACKEN, J.P., O'BRIEN, FRIEDMANN, and GOLDSTEIN, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Shah v. Lokhandwala

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 12, 1999
265 A.D.2d 396 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
Case details for

Shah v. Lokhandwala

Case Details

Full title:DIPTI SHAH, et at., appellants, v. MEHJABIN LOKHANDWALA, et at.…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Oct 12, 1999

Citations

265 A.D.2d 396 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
697 N.Y.S.2d 73

Citing Cases

Gfeller v. Russo

In support of its motion, NFR presented evidence establishing that it had no control over the method or means…

Vasquez v. Sirkin Realty Corp.

The court properly determined that triable issues were raised as to whether defendant Suazo was Sirkin's…