You are here: / / Defendant-Employer’s Motion for Summary Judgment Properly Denied—Defendant...
,

Defendant-Employer’s Motion for Summary Judgment Properly Denied—Defendant Did Not Submit Proof that Defendant’s Employee Was Not Acting Within the Scope of Employment When Employee Removed and Disseminated Photos from Plaintiff’s Cell Phone and Defendant Did Not Submit Proof Demonstrating It Did Not Know of the Employee’s Propensity for Such Conduct

The Second Department determined the motion for summary judgment made by defendant-employer, R & K,  was properly denied. The plaintiff alleged that defendant’s employee, Press, removed and disseminated photographs of her from a cell phone plaintiff had left with defendant for repair.  The Second Department noted that an employer can be liable for the negligence and the intentional torts of an employee, provided that the employee was acting within the scope of employment.  The court explained the criteria for vicarious liability under the doctrine of respondeat superior as well as direct liability for negligent hiring and supervision:

“Pursuant to the doctrine of respondeat superior, an employer can be held vicariously liable for torts committed by an employee acting within the scope of employment” … . “Intentional torts as well as negligent acts may fall within the scope of employment” … . Liability will not attach for torts committed by an employee acting solely for personal motives unrelated to the furtherance of the employer’s business …, or for conduct which could not have been reasonably expected by the employer … .

Here, R & K failed to establish, prima facie, that it could not be held vicariously liable for Press’s alleged acts, as it submitted no transcripts of testimony or affidavits from any of its employees, or business records, to support its contention that Press was acting outside the scope of his employment when he accessed and disseminated photographs from the plaintiff’s cell phone. * * *

“To establish a cause of action based on negligent hiring and supervision, it must be shown that the employer knew or should have known of the employee’s propensity for the conduct which caused the injury” … . R & K failed to submit any proof establishing that it did not know and should not have known about Press’s alleged propensity to engage in the conduct at issue here, or that it was not negligent in hiring Press … . Hoffman v Verizon Wireless Inc, 2015 NY Slip Op 01416, 2nd Dept 2-18-15

 

You might also like
PLAINTIFF’S SIGNING A CONSENT FORM PRIOR TO SURGERY DID NOT REQUIRE DISMISSAL OF THE LACK OF INFORMED CONSENT CAUSE OF ACTION (SECOND DEPT).
“Conclusory” Allegation Rear-End Collision Was Caused by the Sudden Stop of the Lead Vehicle Is Not Enough to Defeat Plaintiffs’ Summary Judgment Motion
HERE A DISPUTE AMONG BROTHERS ABOUT OWNERSHIP OF REAL PROPERTY WAS RESOLVED BY AN OPEN COURT STIPULATION (CONTRACT) WHICH CANNOT BE INVALIDATED ABSENT FRAUD, COLLUSION, MISTAKE OR ACCIDENT; THEREFORE SUPREME COURT SHOULD HAVE HELD A HEARING BEFORE APPROVING THE SUBSEQUENT APPORTIONMENT OF THE PROPERTY BY A RECEIVER WHICH WAS INCONSISTENT WITH THE STIPULATION (SECOND DEPT).
BECAUSE MOTHER’S ATTORNEY APPEARED MOTHER WAS NOT IN DEFAULT; FAMILY COURT’S REFUSAL TO ADMIT DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE OFFERED BY MOTHER’S ATTORNEY DEPRIVED MOTHER OF DUE PROCESS (SECOND DEPT).
WHERE THE MINUTES OF A “QUALITY ASSURANCE” PEER-REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING ASSESSING THE MEDICAL TREATMENT AFFORDED A PATIENT DO NOT IDENTIFY THE SPEAKERS, THE PARTY-STATEMENT EXCEPTION TO THE PUBLIC HEALTH LAW AND EDUCATION LAW PRIVILEGE APPLIES, MAKING ALL THE STATEMENTS BY UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKERS SUBJECT TO DISCOVERY BY THE PLAINTIFF IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION (SECOND DEPT).
BY SUBMITTING A CLAIM TO THE “SEPTEMBER 11TH VICTIM COMPENSATION FUND” (VCF), PLAINTIFF, WHO ALLEGED HIS PROSTATE CANCER WAS RELATED TO HIS WORK AT THE WORLD TRADE CENTER AFTER SEPTEMBER 11TH, WAIVED HIS RIGHT TO SUE HIS PHYSICIAN FOR AN ALLEGED DELAY IN DIAGNOSIS AND TREATMENT OF THE PROSTATE CANCER (SECOND DEPT).
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE LAW 440.30 (1-a) DOES NOT ALLOW A POST-TRIAL CHALLENGE TO DNA EVIDENCE ADMITTED AT TRIAL.
THE PETITION SEEKING EMAILS AND RECIPIENT LISTS IN ELECTRONIC FORM FROM THE VILLAGE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED; THE VILLAGE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE REQUEST COULD NOT BE GRANTED WITH REASONABLE EFFORTS; PETITIONER WAS NOT ADVISED OF THE AVAILABILITY OF AN ADMINSTRATIVE APPEAL, THEREFORE THE APPEAL WAS NOT UNTIMELY (SECOND DEPT).

Categories

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

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Questions of Fact Raised Re: Whether Property Owner Liable for Work Done by... Criteria for Discovery in a Special Proceeding Explained/Criteria for Leave...