Huiping Yan v. HungryPanda U.S. Inc.

• Docket Number: Index No. 651340/2024,Motion Seq. No. 001
• Decision Date: 08 October 2024
• Citation: 2024 NY Slip Op 33739 (U)
• Parties: HUIPING YAN, RI XIN JIANG, LIN JIE LU, KAM HOI CHAN, XIAOHUI HU, BO ZHANG, HONGTAO YU Plaintiffs, v. HUNGRYPANDA U.S. INC., Defendant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court

1

2024 NY Slip Op 33739(U)

HUIPING YAN, RI XIN JIANG, LIN JIE LU, KAM HOI CHAN, XIAOHUI HU, BO ZHANG, HONGTAO YUPlaintiffs, v. HUNGRYPANDA U.S. INC., Defendant.

Index No. 651340/2024, Motion Seq. No. 001

Supreme Court, New York County

October 8, 2024

Unpublished Opinion

MOTION DATE 06/17/2024

DECISION+ ORDER ON MOTION

PAUL A. GOETZ, J.S.C.

The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 001) 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29 30, 31,32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39 were read on this motion to/for DISMISS.

In this unpaid wage Labor Law action, where plaintiffs allege that as delivery workers for defendant HungryPanda US.Inc ("HungryPanda"), that they were underpaid in violation of multiple New York Labor Laws, defendant moves pre-answer pursuant to CPLR § 3211 to dismiss the complaint as against them arguing that plaintiffs have failed to state a cause of action, that the claims are barred as a matter of law, and that the case should be dismissed based on documentary evidence.Plaintiffs oppose and cross-move to amend their complaint in order to address deficiencies noted in defendants' motion.Plaintiffs have eight causes of action which all allege violations of New York Labor Law or regulations made by the Commissioner of Labor authorized by New York Labor Law.

DISCUSSION

Dismissal based on Employer Employee Relationship

Defendant argues that the entire complaint must be dismissed because an employment relationship does not exist between plaintiffs and HungryPanda and that HungryPanda as a technology company, third-party food delivery service, it is regulated by the New York City Department of Consumer and Worker Protection("DWCP").Defendant argues that pursuant to regulations promulgated by the DWCP plaintiffs are independent contractors and not employees and thus are not covered workers under New York Labor Law.Defendant also argues that plaintiffs signed Independent Contractor Agreements which refutes their claims of employee status.Finally, defendant relies on decisions by the New York Workers' Compensation Board determining that workers in similar situations to plaintiffs are independent contractors and therefore disallowing their claims.

Plaintiffs argue that worker status is dependent on a highly fact-intensive inquiry into the economic realities of the workers and their job duties.They argue that defendant has failed to meet its burden under CPLR § 3211(a) which requires unambiguous documentary evidence to warrant dismissal.

"Under CPLR 3211(a)(1), dismissal may be appropriately granted only where the documentary evidence utterly refutes plaintiffs factual allegations, conclusively establishing a defense as a matter of law"(Seaman v Schulte Roth &Zabel LLP,176 A.D.3d 538, 538-39[1st Dept2019])."To constitute documentary evidence, the evidence must be unambiguous, authentic, and undeniable such as judicial records and documents reflecting out-of-court transactions such as mortgages, deeds, contracts, and any other papers the contents of which are essentially undeniable"(Phillips v Taco Bell Corp.,152 A.D.3d 806, 807[2d Dept2017])."Conversely, letters, emails, and affidavits, do not meet the requirements for documentary evidence"(id.).

Here defendant argues that they have submitted documentary evidence establishing that plaintiffs were independent contractors and not employees, and thus cannot be held liable for any of the alleged violations of New York Labor Law that plaintiffs assert.

Plaintiffs assert causes of action based on violations of New York Labor Law §§ 191,195,196, and198, as well as violations of regulations promulgated by the New York Labor Commissioner pursuant to powers authorized by New York Labor Law § 659.

"[I]n order to state a claim under article 6, a plaintiff must first demonstrate that he or she is an employee entitled to its protections"(Bhanti v Brookhaven Mem. Hosp Med. Ctr., Inc.,260 A.D.2d 334, 335[2d Dept1999])."'Employee' is defined in Labor Law article 6 as any person employed for hire by an employer in any employment"(Akgul v Prime Time Transp., Inc.,293 A.D.2d 631, 633[2d Dept2002])."This definition excludes independent contractors, and the determination of whether an employee-employer relationship exists for purposes of Labor Law article 6 depends on evidence that the employer exercises either control over the results produced or over the means used to achieve the results"(id.)."[T]he determination of whether someone is an independent contractor is a fact-specific question"(Carlson v Am. Intern. Group, Inc.,30 N.Y.3d 288, 301[2017])."The determination of whether an employer-employee relationship exists turns on whether the alleged employer exercises control over the results produced, or the means used to achieve the results.Control over the means is the more important consideration (Fiscina v Boro Rug &Catpet Warehouse Cotp.,195 A.D.3d 998, 999[2d Dept2021]).

Here, defendant notes that because it is a covered business under New York City Admin Code§ 20-1522, which required it to get a license as a "third-party food delivery service" and that this section"only applies to the food delivery workers engaged as independent contractors by a third-party courier service or third-party food delivery service that is required to be licensed pursuant to section 20-563.1"(Uber Tech., Inc. v New York City Dept, cf Consumer and Worker Protection, 80 Mise3d 1221(A)[NY S.C.2023], Iv to appeal dismissed, 41 N.Y.3d 935[2024]).Defendant argues that since it is required to adhere to these regulations that this is essentially a judicial admission that all their workers are independent contractors and not employees.

However, as stated above whether an individual worker is an employee or an independent contractor is a fact specific inquiry that requires an analysis of the relationship between worker and company.Indeed, the regulations which defendant is subject to as a "third-party food delivery service" regulates its relationship and offers protections to its independent contractor workers.It does not, however, determine that every person working for a company recognized as a "third-party food delivery service" is an independent contractor without further inquiry.Therefore, HungryPanda's designation and license recognizing it as a "third-party food delivery service" alone cannot satisfy its high burden of establishing that its workers are not employees.

This requirement of a fact-specific inquiry...