You are here: / / Church Had No Special Relationship With Plaintiff, Church Had No Authority...

Church Had No Special Relationship With Plaintiff, Church Had No Authority to Exercise Control Over Conduct of Man Who Injured Plaintiff/Therefore Church Did Not Owe Plaintiff a Duty of Care

The Second Department determined the defendant church was properly granted summary judgment in a case stemming from an altercation between, Edward,  the husband of a church employee (Rhonda), and plaintiff, a pedestrian on a public sidewalk (presumably outside the church). It was alleged that Rhonda encouraged and facilitated an assault on plaintiff by Edward. The respondeat superior cause of action was properly dismissed because Rhonda was not acting within the scope of her employment during the altercation. And the negligence cause of action was properly dismissed because there was no special relationship between the church and the plaintiff, and, therefore, the church did not owe plaintiff a duty of care:

” For a defendant to be held liable in tort, it must have owed the injured party a duty of care'” … . “The existence and extent of a duty is a question of law” … .

“Generally, there is no duty to control the conduct of third persons to prevent them from causing injury to others,’ even where, as a practical matter, the defendant could have exercised such control … . A duty to control the conduct of others requires a special relationship: “a relationship between defendant and a third person whose actions expose plaintiff to harm such as would require the defendant to attempt to control the third person’s conduct; or a relationship between the defendant and plaintiff requiring defendant to protect the plaintiff from the conduct of others” … .

Here, the church made a prima facie showing of its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the cause of action alleging negligence, insofar as asserted against it, by establishing that owed no duty to the plaintiff. Its submissions demonstrated that it had no relationship with the plaintiff, who was a pedestrian on a public sidewalk … . Further, the church established that it did not have the necessary authority or ability to exercise the requisite control over Edward’s conduct so as to give rise to a duty to control his conduct for the protection of off-premises pedestrians … . Rodriguez v Judge, 2015 NY Slip Op 07828, 2nd Dept 10-28-15

 

You might also like
DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE WHEN THE AREA WHERE PLAINTIFF ALLEGEDLY SLIPPED AND FELL WAS LAST INSPECTED OR CLEANED; SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, GRANTED DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON A GROUND NOT RAISED BY THE PARTIES, I.E., FINDING THE DEFECT TRIVIAL (SECOND DEPT).
WHERE RESPONDENTS MADE A PRE-ANSWER MOTION TO DISMISS, THE ULTIMATE RELIEF SOUGHT BY PETITIONER SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED; THE MATTER WAS REMITTED TO ALLOW RESPONDENTS TO ANSWER THE PETITION (SECOND DEPT).
ABSENT FRAUD, COLLUSION OR A MALICIOUS OR TORTIOUS ACT, DEFENDANT ATTORNEYS COULD NOT BE LIABLE FOR ACTING WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THEIR AUTHORITY AS AGENTS OF THE CLIENTS AND ALLEGEDLY ADVISING THEIR CLIENTS TO BREACH A CONTRACT WITH PLAINTIFFS (SECOND DEPT).
THE COMPLAINT ADEQUATELY ALLEGED THE TOLLING OF THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS PURSUANT TO THE CONTINUOUS REPRESENTATION DOCTRINE AND THE EXISTENCE OF THE FUNCTIONAL EQUIVALENT OF PRIVITY BETWEEN PLAINTIFF AND THE DEFENDANT ARCHITECT; SUPREME COURT REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).
FAILURE TO SUBMIT AN ORDER FOR SIGNATURE WITHIN 60 DAYS CONSTITUTED ABANDONMENT (SECOND DEPT).
FAILURE TO PLEAD A JURISDICTIONAL DEFECT AS A DEFENSE WAIVED THE DEFECT; WITHOUT EXPERT OPINION EVIDENCE, THE MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CAUSE OF ACTION WAS NOT PROVED (SECOND DEPT)
PETITIONER’S WAIVER OF HER RIGHT TO COUNSEL IN THIS FAMILY COURT ACT ARTICLE 8 PROCEEDING WAS NOT DEMONSTRATED TO HAVE BEEN VOLUNTARY; THE COURT SHOULD HAVE HELD A HEARING ON WHETHER THE RESPONDENT AND PETITIONER HAD BEEN IN AN INTIMATE RELATIONSHIP (THEREBY AFFORDING THE COURT SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION) (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED ACCESS TO COMPLAINANT’S MENTAL HEALTH RECORDS AND SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN PREVENTED FROM CROSS-EXAMINING COMPLAINANT ABOUT HER MENTAL HEALTH; CONVICTION REVERSED AND NEW TRIAL ORDERED (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

Anti-Social Personality Disorder (ASPD) Alone Will Not Support Civil Commitment... Defendant-Driver’s Admission and Prior Inconsistent Statement, Contained...