You are here: / / Police Officer’s Actions In a Private Dispute Could Not Be Invoked Against M...
,

Police Officer’s Actions In a Private Dispute Could Not Be Invoked Against Municipality Under Doctrine of Respondeat Superior

The Third Department determined that the doctrine of respondeat superior could not be invoked against a municipality for the actions of an off-duty police officer, even where the officer characterized his actions as an arrest.  Here the police officer injured the plaintiff in a private dispute that had nothing to do with the officer’s official duties:

“The doctrine of respondeat superior renders an employer vicariously liable for the tortious acts of its employees only if those acts were committed in furtherance of the employer’s business and within the scope of employment” … .  Thus, “where an employee’s actions are taken for wholly personal reasons, which are not job related, his or her conduct cannot be said to fall within the scope of employment” … .  Notably, and as is relevant to the matter before us, “[a] municipality cannot be held vicariously liable for acts perpetrated by a member of its police force in the course of engaging in a personal dispute, without any genuine official purpose, whether or not the police officer characterizes such conduct as an arrest or incident to an arrest” … . Stevens v Kellar, 516875, 3rd Dept 12-19-13

 

You might also like
Claimant Did Not Link Illness Caused by Ingestion of a Ubiquitous Mold to Workplace
AFTER THE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION (DEC) AND THE PERMIT APPLICANT CAME TO AN AGREEMENT, A REQUEST BY AFFECTED PROPERTY OWNERS FOR FURTHER ADJUDICATION OF ISSUES RELATING TO THE APPROVAL OF TWO DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS IN THE CATSKILLS WAS PROPERLY DENIED BY THE DEC COMMISSIONER (THIRD DEPT).
TERMINATION OF MOTHER’S SUPERVISED VISITATION IS A “DRASTIC REMEDY” WHICH MUST BE SUPPORTED BY “SUBSTANTIAL PROOF” CONTINUED VISITATION “WOULD BE HARMFUL TO THE CHILD;” THE PROOF HERE DID NOT MEET THOSE CRITERIA (THIRD DEPT). ​
EMERGENCY EXCEPTION TO THE WARRANT REQUIREMENT DID NOT JUSTIFY ENTRY AND SEARCH OF DEFENDANT’S APARTMENT, CONVICTIONS REVERSED (THIRD DEPT).
GRANDMOTHER DID NOT DEMONSTRATE EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES JUSTIFYING AWARD OF CUSTODY OF GRANDCHILD TO HER, ANALYTICAL PRINCIPLES EXPLAINED.
BUILDING AND HOME INSPECTORS WERE EMPLOYEES OF ENGINEERING FIRM.
THICKNESS OF THE ICE RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE IN THIS SIDEWALK SLIP AND FALL CASE, PROMISE TO PURCHASE LIABILITY INSURANCE IS NOT THE SAME AS A PROMISE TO INDEMNIFY (THIRD DEPT).
Defense Counsel’s Assessment of the Merits of Defendant’s Pro Se Motion Rendered Her Position Adverse to Defendant’s

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

Copyright © 2023 New York Appellate Digest, LLC
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Department of Health’s Reduction of Medicaid Reimbursement to Nursing Homes... No Constitutional Issue Raised by Claim that County Is Paying Too High a “Mobility...