You are here: / / Town Has Duty to Defend Former Town Clerk Accused of Sexual Harassment...
,

Town Has Duty to Defend Former Town Clerk Accused of Sexual Harassment Within the Scope of Employment

The Second Department determined the Town Law required the town to pay for the defense of the former town clerk accused of sexual harassment within the scope of his employment:

The duty to defend is broader than the duty to indemnify …, and it is triggered if the civil complaint includes allegations that the employee was acting within the scope of his or her employment at the time of the alleged wrongdoing … . Here, the underlying federal complaint specifically alleges, among other things, that the petitioner committed sexual harassment while acting in the scope of his employment as the Town Clerk, the Town facilitated a hostile work environment, and the Town failed to prevent workplace harassment. Contrary to the Town’s contention, the Supreme Court correctly determined that the allegations in the federal complaint were sufficient to trigger the Town’s broad duty to defend the petitioner … . Matter of Bonilla v Town of Hempstead, 2015 NY Slip Op 06916, 2nd Dept 9-23-15

 

You might also like
INCLUSORY CONCURRENT COUNTS DISMISSED; POSSESSION OF A WEAPON SENTENCE SHOULD BE CONCURRENT WITH THE ATTEMPTED MURDER AND ASSAULT SENTENCES (SECOND DEPT).
DISMISSAL OF INTENTIONAL TORT CAUSES OF ACTION PRECLUDED SUBSEQUENT ACTION SOUNDING IN NEGLIGENCE, NO NEGLIGENT ASSAULT IN NEW YORK.
Cause of Action for Breach of “Sharing Assets” Agreement Entered Into During an 18-Year “Committed Same-Sex Relationship” Reinstated
FAMILY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE APPLIED THE DOCTRINE OF COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL TO DENY A PETITION TO VACATE AN ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF PATERNITY.
Petition for the Opportunity to Ballot Not Demonstrated to Have Been Permeated by Fraud
DEFENDANT HAD PLED GUILTY IN ANOTHER COUNTY TO POSSESSION OF THE SAME WEAPON USED IN THE INSTANT ROBBERY, CONVICTION VIOLATED THE PROTECTION AGAINST DOUBLE JEOPARDY, EVIDENCE OF THE PRIOR CONVICTION PROPERLY ADMITTED UNDER MOLINEUX (SECOND DEPT).
Note and Mortgage Void as Usurious
THE SUPPORT MAGISTRATE SHOULD HAVE INQUIRED FURTHER WHEN FATHER SAID HE WISHED TO HAVE AN ATTORNEY BUT COULD NOT AFFORD ONE; THE SUPPORT MAGISTRATE TOLD FATHER HE WAS NOT ENTITLED TO APPOINTED COUNSEL BECAUSE HE WAS WORKING; FATHER WAS DEPRIVED OF HIS RIGHT TO COUNSEL (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

Rare Example of Sufficiently Pled Cause of Action for Prima Facie Tort—Elements... Relation Back Doctrine Did Not Apply to Causes of Action in Amended Complaint—Amendment...