Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Rozmus v. Wesleyan Church of Hamburg
Citation: 2018 NY Slip Op 3261Docket: 447 CA 17-01439
Court: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York; May 4, 2018; New York; State Appellate Court
Original Court Document: View Document
In Rozmus v. Wesleyan Church of Hamburg, the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York reversed a lower court's order that had granted summary judgment to the defendants, thereby reinstating the plaintiff's second amended complaint. The plaintiff, April M. Rozmus, sought damages for injuries from a ladder that struck her during a neighborhood rehabilitation project organized by the defendants. The court found that the defendants failed to prove they were not liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior, which holds a principal responsible for the negligent acts of its agents, including volunteers, when certain conditions are met. The court emphasized that the defendants did not sufficiently demonstrate that the volunteers were not their servants nor that they could avoid the duty of ensuring safe work conditions. Additionally, the defendants could not rely on the plaintiff's inability to identify the specific volunteer responsible for the accident as a basis for summary judgment. The court highlighted that the moving party in a summary judgment motion must affirmatively prove its case, rather than pointing out deficiencies in the opponent's evidence. Furthermore, the court rejected Xertion Youth, Inc.'s argument for protection from liability under the Volunteer Protection Act and the Not-for-Profit Corporation Law, clarifying that these statutes do not extend liability protection to corporate entities. The court noted conflicting evidence regarding whether Xertion's principal received compensation, stating that courts typically do not disregard the corporate structure for liability purposes. The decision underscores the importance of establishing clear liability and responsibility in cases involving volunteer activities.