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
THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PLAINTIFF AND DEFENDANT WAS NOT CLOSE ENOUGH TO ALLOW AN UNJUST ENRICHMENT ACTION, DEFENDANT’S ACTIONS COULD NOT HAVE CAUSED PLAINTIFF’S RELIANCE OR INDUCEMENT (SECOND DEPT
THE FEDERAL POSSESSION-OF-A-FIREARM-BY-A-FELON STATUTE IS NOT THE EQUIVALENT OF A NEW YORK FELONY BECAUSE THE FEDERAL STATUTE DOES NOT REQUIRE A SHOWING THE WEAPON WAS OPERABLE; DEFENDANT’S SECOND FELONY OFFENDER ADJUDICATION VACATED (SECOND DEPT).
THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS’ (ZBA’S) DENIAL OF A LOT-SIZE VARIANCE CONFLICTED WITH A PRIOR RULING BASED ON SIMILAR FACTS; THEREFORE THE ZBA WAS REQUIRED TO PROVIDE A FACTUAL BASIS FOR ITS DECISION; THE DECISION, WHICH WAS SUPPORTED ONLY BY COMMUNITY OPPOSITION, WAS ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS (SECOND DEPT).
THE FACT THAT COMPLAINANT TURNED 21 DURING THE FAMILY OFFENSE HEARING DID NOT DEPRIVE FAMILY COURT OF JURISDICTION; NOR DID THE INCAPACITY OF THE COMPLAINANT (SECOND DEPT).
SORA Hearing Procedure.
DEFENDANT BAR NOT LIABLE FOR INJURIES AND DEATH OF PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT RESULTING FROM AN ALTERCATION ON A PUBLIC ROAD IN FRONT OF THE BAR, BAR EXERCISED NO CONTROL OVER THE AREA WHERE THE ALTERCATION OCCURRED (SECOND DEPT).
Sole Eyewitness’ Testimony at Trial Indicating She Could Not Identify the Shooter (Because of the Passage of Time and the Effects of Alcoholism and Depression) Did Not Allow the Prosecutor to Impeach Her with Her Grand Jury Testimony and Prior Identification of the Shooter
PLAINTIFF BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE STRICT COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304 AND THEREFORE WAS NOT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION; DEFENDANT’S MERE DENIAL OF RECEIPT OF THE NOTICE DID NOT WARRANT SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN DEFENDANT’S FAVOR (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...