Key Points

  • The Appellate Division, Second Department, unanimously reversed two Kings County orders that had granted summary judgment to Uber Technologies, Uber USA, Rasier-NY and Rasier-CA in personal-injury suits involving driver Asif Shafique.
  • The panel held that the Uber companies failed to make a prima facie showing because they did not eliminate triable issues of fact over whether Shafique was an independent contractor or an employee.
  • The court restated that whether a worker is an independent contractor or an employee is usually a factual question for a jury, and that an employer is generally not vicariously liable for an independent contractor's negligence.
  • Because the companies failed their initial burden, the motions should have been denied regardless of the plaintiffs' opposition papers, under Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr.
  • In Guallpa, the plaintiff's cross-motion to file an affirmation exceeding the 22 NYCRR 202.8-b(a) word limit was denied as academic.

A New York appeals court on Nov. 12 reinstated two personal-injury lawsuits against Uber and three affiliated companies, holding that the companies had not shown that the driver named in both suits was an independent contractor rather than an employee.

The Appellate Division, Second Department, issued the two unsigned decisions the same day. The same four-justice panel decided both appeals without dissent: Justice Colleen D. Duffy, who presided, and Justices Barry E. Warhit, Donna-Marie E. Golia and Lisa S. Ottley.

Each decision reversed an order by Justice Joy F. Campanelli of Supreme Court, Kings County, that had granted summary judgment to Uber Technologies Inc., Uber USA LLC, Rasier-NY LLC and Rasier-CA LLC. The reversals restore the plaintiffs' claims against those four companies. The panel held that the companies, as the parties seeking judgment, had to rule out any factual dispute over the driver's status, and that because they did not, their motions failed no matter how strong or weak the opposing papers were.

Both suits name the same driver, Asif Shafique, who is also a defendant. Segundo Ramon Dutan-Guaman sued in February 2022, alleging that he was injured when a vehicle Shafique was driving struck his vehicle. Maria Josefina C. Guallpa sued in December 2021, alleging that she was injured when a vehicle Shafique was driving struck the vehicle in which she was a passenger.

Each plaintiff alleged, among other things, that Shafique was an employee of the Uber companies, which the decisions refer to collectively as the Uber defendants. After discovery, the companies moved in each case for summary judgment dismissing the complaint against them. Campanelli granted that request in Dutan-Guaman's case in an order dated April 16, 2025, and in Guallpa's case in an order dated April 23, 2025.

In Guallpa's case, the trial court also denied the plaintiff's cross-motion for permission to file an opposing affirmation longer than the word-count limit set by 22 NYCRR 202.8-b(a). Both plaintiffs appealed.

The panel's analysis in both decisions began with respondeat superior, the doctrine that makes an employer answerable for wrongs its employees commit on the job. "The doctrine of respondeat superior renders [an employer] vicariously liable for a tort committed by his or her [employee] within the scope of employment," the court wrote, quoting Gaudreau v. Cucuzzo.

The court explained that conduct can fall within the scope of employment "when the employee is engaged generally in the business of the employer, or if the act may be reasonably said to be necessary or incidental to such employment." For that proposition the panel quoted Uy v. Hussein and cited Bandele v. Rasier-NY, LLC.

That liability has a limit. "However, [a]s a general rule, an employer who hires an independent contractor, as distinguished from an employee . . . , is not liable for the negligent acts of the independent contractor," the court wrote, again quoting Gaudreau.

The panel then stated the principle that governed the outcome. "Whether an actor is an independent contractor or an employee is usually a factual issue for a jury," the court wrote, quoting Rivera v. Fenix Car Serv. Corp.

Applying those rules, the panel held that the Uber companies had not made a prima facie showing that they were entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The companies "did not eliminate all triable issues of fact as to whether Shafique was an independent contractor or an employee of the Uber defendants," the court wrote in both decisions, citing Bandele and Uy.

Because the companies failed at that first step, the court held, the motions should have been denied without any need to examine what the plaintiffs had filed in response. The Guallpa decision said the trial court should have denied the motion "regardless of the sufficiency of the plaintiff's opposition papers," citing Winegrad v. New York Univ. Med. Ctr. The Dutan-Guaman decision reached the same result in nearly identical words, saying the motion should have been denied "without regard to the sufficiency of the plaintiff's opposition papers."

Neither decision describes the evidence the Uber companies submitted with their motions. Neither identifies which facts about Shafique's relationship with the companies remained in dispute, and neither decides whether he was in fact an employee or an independent contractor.

The panel's reasoning also disposed of the word-limit dispute in Guallpa's case. Since the court did not need to consider the plaintiff's opposition papers, it held that her request to file a longer affirmation no longer mattered. "In light of our determination, the plaintiff's cross-motion for leave to file an oversized affirmation in opposition to the Uber defendants' motion should have been denied as academic," the court wrote.

The appeals reached only the claims against the four Uber companies. Each order was reversed "insofar as appealed from," and the decisions do not address the claims against Shafique or the other relief the companies had sought in their motions.

Michael T. Altman of The Altman Law Firm PLLC, of counsel to Gregory Spektor & Associates P.C., represented Dutan-Guaman on appeal. Lisa M. Comeau, of counsel to Yakov Mushiyev & Associates, P.C., represented Guallpa. The Uber companies were represented in both appeals by lawyers including Jacob Taber of Ashurst Perkins Coie US LLP, of counsel to Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker LLP.

The Second Department reversed both orders with costs and denied the branch of each motion that sought summary judgment dismissing the complaint against the Uber companies. The decisions, published as 2026 NY Slip Op 06691 and 2026 NY Slip Op 06698, are marked uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.