You are here: / / DEFENDANT BICYCLIST WAS NOT ACTING WITHIN THE SCOPE OF HIS EMPLOYMENT WHEN...
,

DEFENDANT BICYCLIST WAS NOT ACTING WITHIN THE SCOPE OF HIS EMPLOYMENT WHEN HE STRUCK AND KILLED PLAINTIFF, EMPLOYER NOT VICARIOUSLY OR DIRECTLY LIABLE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined defendant-bicyclist’s (Cook’s) employer (AGI) was not vicariously liable for the bicyclist’s actions. Cook was riding his own bicycle on his own time when he struck and killed plaintiff. Cook worked as a bicycling coach for AGI. The court also found that the negligent hiring and retention cause of action was properly dismissed:

​

The motion court correctly determined that AGI could not be held vicariously liable for Cook’s alleged negligence, as Cook was acting outside the scope of his employment. At the time of the accident, Cook was engaged in a weekend bicycle ride, in a public park, using a bicycle that he purchased and equipped, was alone and was not coaching anyone, and was not acting in furtherance of any duties owed to AGI … .

Cook’s unsupported belief, as set forth in an affirmative defense, that his bicycle riding had a work component to it, and his unsworn Response to the Notice to Admit (see CPLR 3123[a]), which improperly sought admissions as to employment status, a contested issue central to the action … , do not create triable issues of fact as to whether Cook was acting in the scope of employment … . …[T]here is no indication that AGI was exercising any control over Cook at the time of the accident … .

​

The motion court correctly dismissed plaintiff’s direct negligence claim against AGI. There is no evidence that AGI knew or should have known of Cook’s alleged propensity to dangerously ride his bicycle in Central Park, an element necessary to support the claim for negligent hiring and retention … , and plaintiff’s conclusory allegations of deficient training are insufficient to defeat summary judgment … . Fein v Cook, 2017 NY Slip Op 06603, First Dept 9-26-17

​

NEGLIGENCE (DEFENDANT BICYCLIST WAS NOT ACTING WITHIN THE SCOPE OF HIS EMPLOYMENT WHEN HE STRUCK AND KILLED PLAINTIFF, EMPLOYER NOT VICARIOUSLY OR DIRECTLY LIABLE (FIRST DEPT))/EMPLOYMENT LAW (VICARIOUS LIABILITY, DEFENDANT BICYCLIST WAS NOT ACTING WITHIN THE SCOPE OF HIS EMPLOYMENT WHEN HE STRUCK AND KILLED PLAINTIFF, EMPLOYER NOT VICARIOUSLY OR DIRECTLY LIABLE (FIRST DEPT))

You might also like
Notice of Voluntary Discontinuance Filed After Opponents’ Motions to Dismiss Is Untimely
COMPLAINT ALLEGING LEGAL MALPRACTICE STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION, WHETHER PLAINTIFF WAS AWARE OF THE PROBLEM IN TIME TO AVOID THE CONSEQUENCES, THEREBY PRECLUDING THE MALPRACTICE ACTION, COULD NOT BE DETERMINED ON A MOTION TO DISMISS (FIRST DEPT).
TIER 3 POLICE OFFICERS NOT ENTITLED TO SERVICE CREDIT FOR PERIODS OF UNPAID CHILD CARE LEAVE (FIRST DEPT).
QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER PEBBLE-SIZED DEBRIS WHICH FELL ON PLAINTIFF AND ALLEGEDLY SERIOUSLY INJURED HIS EYE GAVE RISE TO LIABILITY UNDER LABOR LAW 240(1) AND 241(6) (FIRST DEPT).
SUPREME COURT PROPERLY REJECTED THE LANDLORD’S CALCULATION OF RENT OVERCHARGES FOR RENT-REGULATED APARTMENTS REMOVED FROM RENT STABILIZATION WHILE THE BUILDING WAS RECEIVING J-51 TAX BENEFITS (FIRST DEPT).
THE TRIAL JUDGE SHOULD HAVE GIVEN THE ADVERSE INFERENCE CHARGE WHICH HAD BEEN ORDERED AS A DISCOVERY SANCTION RE: A MISSING SURVEILLANCE TAPE; JURY VERDICT SET ASIDE (FIRST DEPT). ​
PLAINTIFF ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION, A CABLE TRAY FELL ON HIS HEAD FROM THE TOP OF TWO LADDERS, A SUBCONTRACTOR WAS LIABLE BECAUSE THE CONTRACT DELEGATED THE AUTHORITY TO CONTROL THE WORK TO THE SUBCONTRACTOR, THE LESSEE WAS LIABLE AS AN “OWNER” WITHIN THE MEANING OF LABOR LAW 240 (1) (FIRST DEPT).
DEFENDANT EMPLOYER’S LATE MOTION TO AMEND THE ANSWER IN THIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) ACTION TO ASSERT THAT PLAINTIFF’S EXCLUSIVE REMEDY WAS THE WORKER’S COMPENSATION BENEFITS ALREADY AWARDED SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST 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

DEFENDANT DEMONSTRATED IT TOOK ADEQUATE MEASURES TO KEEP THE FLOOR DRY, DEFENDANT’S... POLICE OFFICER WAS RESPONDING TO AN EMERGENCY AND WAS NOT ACTING IN RECKLESS...