You are here: / / THE BUILDING MANAGING AGENT, WHO HIRED PEREZ, THE BUILDING SUPERINTENDENT,...
, ,

THE BUILDING MANAGING AGENT, WHO HIRED PEREZ, THE BUILDING SUPERINTENDENT, WAS NOT OBLIGATED TO DETERMINE WHETHER PEREZ, A REGISTERED SEX OFFENDER, HAD A CRIMINAL RECORD; THE BUILDING OWNER AND MANAGING AGENT, THEREFORE, WERE NOT LIABLE UNDER A NEGLIGENT HIRING AND RETENTION THEORY OR A RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR THEORY FOR PEREZ’S SEXUAL ASSAULT ON INFANT PLAINTIFF (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the building owner, Carpenter, and managing agent, Lemle, could not be held liable for the sexual assault on infant plaintiff by Perez, the building superintendent. The managing agent, who hired Perez, was not under an obligation to determine whether Perez, a registered sex offender, had a criminal record:

Carpenter hired managing agents, who employed Perez. Lemle was the managing agent on the relevant date. However, no issue of fact exists as to whether Lemle can be held liable for Perez’s negligent hiring or retention because the record is devoid of evidence that Lemle had knowledge of Perez’s propensity to commit a violent act … . The fact that Perez was a registered sex offender does not avail plaintiffs, as, in the absence of knowledge of any facts that would cause a reasonable person to question a person’s background, an employer is under no duty to inquire whether an employee has been convicted of a crime … . The imposition of such a duty is a matter for the Legislature. There is no evidence that, prior to the incident in question, Perez ever did anything that should have indicated to his employer that he had a propensity to commit sexual abuse or any other crimes. Further, that Perez falsified identification records that he submitted for payroll purposes is of no moment, since the paperwork on its face would not have caused a reasonable person to question its veracity. Nor can Lemle be held vicariously liable for Perez’s conduct because the conduct was not in furtherance of Lemle’s business and was outside the scope of Perez’s employment … . Samoya W. v 3940 Carpenter Ave., LLC, 2020 NY Slip Op 06218, First Dept 10-29-20

 

You might also like
HOMEOWNER’S EXCEPTION TO LABOR LAW 240 (1) LIABILITY APPLIED, DEFENDANTS DEMONSTRATED FREEDOM FROM FAULT UNDER LABOR LAW 200.
DEFENDANT’S WAIVER OF HIS RIGHT TO COUNSEL WAS INVALID BECAUSE DEFENDANT WAS NOT AWARE OF HIS SENTENCING EXPOSURE AND THE JUDGE DID NOT CONDUCT A SEARCHING INQURY; THE EVIDENCE OF CRIMINAL MISCHIEF AND AUTO STRIPPING WAS LEGALLY INSUFFICIENT AND THE CONVICTIONS WERE AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE (FIRST DEPT).
DEBRIS LEFT BEHIND AFTER WORK ON ANOTHER PROJECT WAS NOT “INTEGRAL” TO THE WORK PLAINTIFF WAS PERFORMING WHEN HE TRIPPED AND FELL; PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON CERTAIN LABOR LAW 241(6) CAUSES OF ACTION BASED UPON INDUSTRIAL CODE VIOLATIONS; IN ADDITION THE CITY DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A LACK OF CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE DEBRIS; THEREFORE THE LABOR LAW 200 AND COMMMON-LAW NEGLIGENCE CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).
PROPERTY OWNER LIABLE FOR PLAINTIFF’S FALL FROM A LADDER (UNDER LABOR LAW 240 (1)) WHILE WORKING FOR A TENANT, EVEN IF THE OWNER WAS NOT AWARE THE TENANT HIRED THE PLAINTIFF, WHERE ONLY HEARSAY EVIDENCE IS OFFERED IN OPPOSITION TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT, A QUESTION OF FACT IS NOT RAISED (FIRST DEPT).
LEASE WITH PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYER DID NOT REQUIRE LANDLORD TO MAINTAIN THE YARD OUTSIDE THE BUILDING, PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED WHEN HE STEPPED INTO A HOLE DUG BY PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYER IN THE YARD, LANDLORD’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF FELL LEAVING AN ELEVATOR HE HAD JUST MODIFIED TO PREVENT ACCESS TO A FLOOR; HIS WORK WAS NOT ROUTINE MAINTENANCE; INDUSTRIAL CODE PROVISIONS ABOUT GUARDING HAZARDOUS OPENINGS APPLIED; ONE DEFENDANT MAY BE LIABLE AS A STATUTORY AGENT; LABOR LAW 200, 240(1) AND 241(6) CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT). ​
PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED USING A GRINDER WHICH DID NOT HAVE A SAFETY GUARD, THE LABOR LAW 241 (6) CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).
ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF FELL OFF A LOADING DOCK WHILE WAITING TO SIGN IN TO WORK IN A BUILDING, HIS INJURY OCCURRED AT THE CONSTRUCTION SITE AND WHILE HE WAS ENGAGED IN WORK INVOLVING A GRAVITY-RELATED RISK WITHIN THE MEANING OF LABOR LAW 240 (1) (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

THE MOTION TO VACATE DEFENDANT’S CONVICTION ON INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE... CLAIMANT’S FAILURE TO SUBMIT MEDICAL RECORDS TO THE EMPLOYER PRIOR TO...