This page summarizes and comments on a published court decision. It is general information, not legal advice, and reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship. Every case depends on its own facts. Unless this page says otherwise, The Eskesen Law Firm did not represent any party in this case.
Bottom line
A company can be held responsible for a crash caused by its employee on the job, but generally not for one caused by an independent contractor, and which one a driver was is usually a question for the jury. Here, the Second Department reversed the dismissal of an injured woman’s claims against three Uber companies, holding that they failed to eliminate all questions of fact about whether the driver was working as an independent contractor, rather than as their employee, when the collision happened.
The case
- Court
- Appellate Division, Second Department
- Decided
- October 21, 2026
- Case
- Rivera v M. GS Talukder
- Citation
- 2026 NY Slip Op 06157
- Official text
- Read the decision on the New York courts’ official reporter site
The facts
The plaintiff alleged that she was injured when a vehicle she occupied collided with a vehicle owned and operated by M. GS Talukder. She sued Talukder and three companies, Uber USA, LLC, Rasier-NY, LLC, and Uber Technologies, Inc. (together, the Uber defendants), alleging that at the time of the collision Talukder was working as their employee or agent. After discovery was completed, the Uber defendants moved for summary judgment dismissing the claims against them, arguing that Talukder was acting as an independent contractor when the collision occurred, so they could not be held vicariously liable for his alleged negligence. The Supreme Court, Queens County, granted the motion, and the plaintiff appealed.
The holding
The Second Department reversed and denied the motion. It explained that an employer is vicariously liable for its employee’s torts within the scope of employment but, as a general rule, not for an independent contractor’s negligence, and that “[w]hether an actor is an independent contractor or an employee for the purposes of tort liability is usually a factual issue for the jury” (2026 NY Slip Op 06157, *2, quoting Gaudreau v Cucuzzo). The factors include whether the worker “worked at his [or her] own convenience,” “was free to engage in other employment,” and “was on a fixed schedule,” and a contract calling someone an independent contractor “is to be considered, but is not dispositive” (id.). The court held that “the Uber defendants failed to establish their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, as they failed to eliminate all triable issues of fact as to whether Talukder was acting as an independent contractor, and not as their employee, when the collision occurred” (id.), so the motion failed “regardless of the sufficiency of the plaintiff’s opposition papers” (id.).
What changed
Nothing new: this applies settled law. The court followed its July 2026 decision in Bandele v Rasier-NY, LLC (251 AD3d 904), and also cited the Court of Appeals’ decision in Matter of Vega (Postmates Inc.—Commissioner of Labor) (35 NY3d 131).
What it means
- After a crash, the driver who caused it may not be the only one responsible. A company may be vicariously liable for the negligence of its employee while working.
- Whether a rideshare driver is an employee or an independent contractor for this purpose depends on the facts, such as how much control the company had over the work, and the court said it is usually a question for the jury. A contract calling the driver an independent contractor is considered, but it does not decide the question.
- A company asking the court to dismiss the claims against it on this ground must eliminate those questions of fact first. Here, the Uber defendants did not.
- The decision does not decide whether Talukder was negligent, whether he was in fact an employee, or damages.
Our view
Commentary by Frank N. Eskesen. This section is opinion.
We note that this is at least the second time in three months that the Second Department has held that Uber companies were not entitled to dismissal on this ground. In Bandele v Rasier-NY, LLC, decided in July, the court likewise held that the Uber defendants had not eliminated questions of fact about whether the driver was an independent contractor. In our experience, this question matters most in serious cases in New York City. Outside the city, state law requires $1,250,000 of coverage for a rideshare trip (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1693[3][a]), but, perhaps to the surprise of many, that law does not apply in New York City (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1692[10]). In the city, the car carries the coverage the Taxi and Limousine Commission requires, which the TLC’s commissioner told the City Council in 2025 is $100,000 per person. For someone badly hurt, the lower New York City TLC limit may not go far, and whether the company itself may also be responsible can decide whether there is anything beyond it. Decisions like this one and Bandele are a step toward closing that gap. We believe two lessons follow. 1. If you are hurt in a crash with a rideshare driver, write down anything that shows whether the driver was working at the time, such as whether there was a passenger in the car; photograph the car’s license plate and any rideshare stickers on its windshield; and get legal advice promptly. 2. For lawyers, while your client may know whether their own driver came through a rideshare app, that is not always obvious when the driver at fault was in the other car or the client was a pedestrian, so it is important to find out quickly whether a rideshare company was involved. The police report’s plate and insurance entries can show whether the car was TLC-licensed, and the company can be asked in writing, right away, to preserve its trip and app records for the time of the crash. From there, the control factors the court listed are the place to start, and the company moving for dismissal must eliminate the questions of fact before the burden shifts. What the paperwork calls a driver may not settle who is responsible.
Topics
Court: Second Department. Year: 2026. Result: reversed.
Reviewed by Frank N. Eskesen, admitted in New York since 2000. Decided October 21, 2026. Posted October 21, 2026.
Questions about your own accident?
Call us for a free consultation. Calls answered live 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.