An Employee's Side Hustle Could Lead to Legal Tussles
'Gundlach' illuminates the risks that may await a board when an employee's small side jobs goes awry, and serves as a cautionary tale.
December 28, 2021 at 12:00 PM
6 minute read
Real EstateA Dec. 1, 2021 decision from the New York State Supreme Court, New York County, by Justice Judith Reeves McMahon in Gundlach, Plaintiff, v. Jaehon Kim, et. al., 73 Misc.3d 1227(A) (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2021), involves oft-encountered situation—a condominium unit owner's request that a building employee perform a small side job which is not part of that employee's ordinary duties for its employer. Unfortunately for the board of managers involved in this case, it may be liable for personal injuries which occurred solely inside the apartment.
As cooperative and condominium attorneys, we frequently encounter residents' requests that building employees perform tasks inside an apartment, such as installing a faucet, hanging an oversized picture or, as is the case in Gundlach, installing a ceiling fan. For residents, asking a building employee to handle such side jobs may seem more like a rule, rather than the exception. Gundlach, however, illuminates the risks that may await a board when one of these small side jobs goes awry, and serves as a cautionary tale.
The facts are as follows: Plaintiff Daniel Gundlach brought a complaint under Index No. 805225/2018 in the New York State Supreme Court, County of New York against defendants Jaehon Kim, Manhattan Surgery Center, Wallack Management Co., and Katherine Witherell. Mr. Gundlach's complaint related to a hand injury he sustained due to Ms. Witherell's living room ceiling fan. Apparently, Mr. Gundlach's left ring finger struck the ceiling fan when he raised his arms above his head to make his guest bed for the night. After the impact, he was taken to Mount Sinai Hospital for treatment, was diagnosed with a broken finger, required surgery and other treatment. Id. After the surgery, there were complications, including infection and deformities of his hand. Id.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllEstablishing the Prevailing Party; Failure To Comply With LLC Law; Takings Claim: This Week in Scott Mollen's Realty Law Digest
Decision of the Day: De Blasio Must Sit for Deposition in Suit Over City Program to Transfer Foreclosed Properties
Law Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1Infant Formula Judge Sanctions Kirkland's Jim Hurst: 'Overtly Crossed the Lines'
- 2Trump's Return to the White House: The Legal Industry Reacts
- 3Election 2024: Nationwide Judicial Races and Ballot Measures to Watch
- 4Climate Disputes, International Arbitration, and State Court Limitations for Global Issues
- 5Judicial Face-Off: Navigating the Ethical and Efficient Use of AI in Legal Practice [CLE Pending]
- 6How Much Does the Frequency of Retirement Withdrawals Matter?
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250