You are here: / / Sheriff’s (Lack of) Liability Under Respondeat Superior, Elements...
, , , , ,

Sheriff’s (Lack of) Liability Under Respondeat Superior, Elements of Malicious Prosection, Abuse of Process, False Imprisonment and Libel Per Se Explained

image_pdfPDF Friendly Versionimage_printPrint Friendly Version

In a lengthy and detailed decision the Fourth Department explained the negligence actions against the sheriff based on respondeat superior were properly dismissed, the action for malicious prosecution was properly dismissed (because the underlying criminal action was not dismissed on the merits and could be renewed), but the actions for abuse of process, false imprisonment, and libel per se should not have been dismissed.  The decision is too lengthy to summarize here, but it includes detailed explanations of the sheriff’s immunity from suit under respondeat superior and the elements of malicious prosecution, abuse of process, false imprisonment, and libel per se. The action stemmed from the allegation plaintiff was falsely accused of stealing a computer.  D’Amico v Correctional Med Care Inc, 2014 NY Slip Op -5737, 4th Dept 8-8-14

 

/by
You might also like
RECKLESS ENDANGERMENT CONVICTION NOT SUPPORTED BY THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE; BECAUSE THE LEGAL SUFFICIENCY OF THE CONVICTION WAS NOT CHALLENGED IT MUST BE REVERSED NOT REDUCED BY THE APPELLATE COURT; GRAND LARCENY AND POSSESSION OF STOLEN PROPERTY CONVICTIONS NOT SUPPORTED BY THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE; INADEQUATE PROOF OF VALUE (FOURTH DEPT).
Guilty Plea Waives All Nonjurisdictional Pre-Trial and Trial Defects.
Requirements for a Negligence Action Against a Municipality (Based Upon Personal Injuries Allegedly Caused by the Actions of Police Officers) Explained
ALTHOUGH THE DEFENDANT HOMEOWNERS ACTED AS A GENERAL CONTRACTOR, THEY DID NOT SUPERVISE OR CONTROL ANY OF THE WORK, HOMEOWNERS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240 (1), 241 (6) AND 200 CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).
CAUSE OF THE SLIP AND FALL WAS NOT BASED UPON PURE SPECULATION, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).
DEFENDANT’S EMPLOYEE WAS NOT ACTING WITHIN THE SCOPE OF HIS EMPLOYMENT WHEN HE ARM-WRESTLED WITH PLAINTIFF; THEREFORE THE EMPLOYER WAS NOT LIABLE FOR THE ALLEGED INJURY TO PLAINTIFF UNDER A RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR THEORY (FOURTH DEPT).
ABSENCE OF MARKINGS OR COLOR DIFFERENTIATION BETWEEN STEP AND SIDEWALK CREATED AN ISSUE OF FACT WHETHER THE STEP WAS A DANGEROUS CONDITION, IRRESPECTIVE OF PLAINTIFF’S POSSIBLE COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE.
Claims Against the State Based Upon Recurrent Flooding Properly In Supreme Court as Opposed to the Court of Claims/Criteria for Inverse Condemnation of Property Explained (Not Met Here)

Categories

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

Copyright © 2020 New York Appellate Digest, LLC
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Negligence and “1983” Causes of Action Against the City and/or City... Failure to Move to Sever Unrelated Counts of Indictment Constituted Ineffective...