Neacosia v. New York Power Authority, 85 N.Y.2d 471 (1995)

An employee injured while traveling between work and home, after completing a work-related errand, sustains injuries arising out of employment if the employer encouraged the errand and benefitted from it.

Summary

Michael Neacosia, a security officer, was injured in a car accident after dropping off his uniform at a dry cleaner recommended by his employer, the New York State Power Authority. He filed for worker’s compensation. The Workers’ Compensation Board affirmed an award of benefits, finding the trip a work-related errand. The Appellate Division reversed, requiring an express directive by the employer for the errand to qualify. The New York Court of Appeals reversed, holding that express requirement isn’t necessary; employer encouragement and benefit are sufficient for the ‘special errand’ exception to the ‘going and coming’ rule.

Facts

Neacosia was a security officer required to wear a clean uniform. The Power Authority recommended specific dry cleaners and paid for the service, though employees could use other cleaners and seek reimbursement. Neacosia dropped off his uniform at a recommended cleaner after his shift, following his usual route home. He was then involved in an accident and sustained severe injuries.

Procedural History

The Law Judge initially awarded worker’s compensation benefits. The Workers’ Compensation Board affirmed this award. The Appellate Division reversed, requiring an express directive from the employer to constitute a ‘special errand’. The Court of Appeals granted an appeal as of right.

Issue(s)

1. Whether the ‘special errand’ exception to the ‘going and coming’ rule requires an express employer directive, or if employer encouragement and benefit are sufficient.

2. Whether Neacosia’s employment had terminated prior to the accident, thus precluding application of the ‘special errand’ exception.

Holding

1. No, because employer encouragement and benefit are sufficient to establish a ‘special errand’.

2. No, because once an employee engages in a ‘special errand,’ the travel between the workplace and home remains within the scope of employment.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court rejected a bright-line rule requiring an express employer directive, finding it inconsistent with precedent and the Workers’ Compensation Law’s liberal construction. It stated, “The test for determining whether specific activities are within the scope of employment or purely personal is whether the activities are both reasonable and sufficiently work related under the circumstances” (citing Matter of Richardson v Fiedler Roofing, 67 N.Y.2d 246, 249). The Court emphasized a two-part test: employer encouragement and benefit. The Power Authority encouraged dry cleaning by recommending specific cleaners and paying for the service. The employer benefitted from a neat and presentable security force and consolidated accounting. Because Neacosia was still traveling home from the special errand, the court determined that his employment had not ended and the special errand exception applied. The Court reasoned, “Once an employee engages in the performance of a special errand, he or she is considered to be acting within the scope of employment during travel between the place of employment and home”.