You are here: / / BAR NOT LIABLE FOR ASSAULT BY SECURITY GUARD WHO WAS AN INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR,...

BAR NOT LIABLE FOR ASSAULT BY SECURITY GUARD WHO WAS AN INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR, NOT AN EMPLOYEE.

The First Department determined defendant bar (BR Guest’s) was not vicariously liable for an assault on plaintiff by a security guard (DiPaola), who was an independent contractor:

The record establishes that DiPaola, a security guard, was an independent contractor when the incident occurred … . The evidence shows that DiPaola was not on BR Guest’s payroll, did not receive health insurance or other fringe benefits, and that BR Guest contracted for his services as a security guard from defendant Presidium, LLC … .

The record reveals nothing more than general supervisory control, which cannot form the basis for imposing liability against BR Guest or Hanson, who was the vice president of BR Guest Inc., for plaintiff’s injuries sustained as a result of DiPaola’s assault … . The fact that BR Guest decided the number of security guards needed on a particular night and where on the premises the guards should be posted at any given time, and gave them instructions relating to the manner in which they performed their work does not render the security guards working at the premises special employees … . McLaughlan v BR Guest, Inc., 2017 NY Slip Op 02906, 1st Dept 4-13-17

 

INTENTIONAL TORTS (BAR NOT LIABLE FOR ASSAULT BY SECURITY GUARD WHO WAS AN INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR, NOT AN EMPLOYEE)/ASSAULT (INTENTIONAL TORT, BAR NOT LIABLE FOR ASSAULT BY SECURITY GUARD WHO WAS AN INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR, NOT AN EMPLOYEE)/EMPLOYMENT LAW (INTENTIONAL TORT, BAR NOT LIABLE FOR ASSAULT BY SECURITY GUARD WHO WAS AN INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR, NOT AN EMPLOYEE)/ASSAULT (INTENTIONAL TORT, BAR NOT LIABLE FOR ASSAULT BY SECURITY GUARD WHO WAS AN INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR, NOT AN EMPLOYEE)/SECURITY GUARDS  (INTENTIONAL TORT, BAR NOT LIABLE FOR ASSAULT BY SECURITY GUARD WHO WAS AN INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR, NOT AN EMPLOYEE)

You might also like
THE BANK DID NOT RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER IT VIOLATED THE SEPARATE-ENVELOPE RULE IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION; THE BANK’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT). ​
STATUTORY NOTICE REQUIREMENTS NOT MET IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION, BANK’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).
EACH TIME PLAINTIFF’S MARKETING DIRECTOR ENTERED A CONTRACT WITH A COMPANY IN WHICH THE DIRECTOR HAD AN OWNERSHIP INTEREST CONSTITUTED A SEPARATE WRONG UNDER THE CONTINUING WRONG DOCTRINE; THE COMPLAINT STATED CAUSES OF ACTION FOR FRAUD AND BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY (FIRST DEPT).
CIVIL COURT WHICH AWARDED RENT ARREARS IN THE EVICTION PROCEEDING DID NOT HAVE SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION OVER THE CLAIM FOR RENT DUE FOR THE REMAINDER OF THE LEASE (POST-EVICTION); THEREFORE THE ACTION IN SUPREME COURT FOR THE POST-EVICTION RENT AS LIQUIDATED DAMAGES WAS NOT BARRED BY THE DOCTRINE OF RES JUDICATA (FIRST DEPT).
THE PEOPLE FAILED TO TIMELY REDUCE THE BOND OBLIGATION TO A JUDGMENT, THEREFORE THE SURETY’S MOTION TO VACATE THE JUDGMENT FORFEITING THE $100,000 BAIL SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT). ​
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER FORFEITURE OF DEFENDANT’S VEHICLE WOULD BE A CONSTITUTIONALLY IMPERMISSIBLE EXCESSIVE FINE (FIRST DEPT).
FIXING A LEAKY ROOF NOT ROUTINE MAINTENANCE, PLAINTIFF’S LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION PROPERLY SURVIVED MOTION TO DISMISS.
Criteria for Domicile Explained

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

ISSUE OF FACT ABOUT MEANING OF AN EXCLUSION IN A FLOOD INSURANCE POLICY. QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER HOMEOWNER’S EXEMPTION APPLIED (LABOR LAW 240...