You are here: / / PLAINTIFF ALLEGED SHE WAS SEXUALLY ASSAULTED BY DEFENDANT’S EMPLOYEE;...
, ,

PLAINTIFF ALLEGED SHE WAS SEXUALLY ASSAULTED BY DEFENDANT’S EMPLOYEE; PLAINTIFF’S NEGLIGENT HIRING, TRAINING, SUPERVISION AND RETENTION CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED; THE MOTION TO DISMISS BASED ON DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE WAS UNTIMELY BECAUSE THE THEORY WAS NOT ASSERTED IN THE ANSWERS; THE MOTION TO DIMSISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION WAS SUPPORTED ONLY BY INADMISSIBLE HEARSAY (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined: (1) defendant security company’s (Kent’s) motion to dismiss the negligent hiring, training, supervision and retention cause of action pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a)(1) was untimely because the defendant did not assert a defense based on documentary evidence in its answers; and (2) the defendant’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim failed because the affidavit submitted by defendant’s director of operations was not sworn to have been made on his personal knowledge and did not lay a proper foundation for the admissibility of the documents referred to in the affidavit as business records. Plaintiff, Erin, alleged a security guard employed by defendant (Kent) sexually assaulted her at a hotel where Kent provided security services:

… [T]he affidavit of Kent’s director of operations was not sworn to have been made on his own personal knowledge, and therefore was of no probative value as to the issues of fact that he addressed … . Moreover, although “an affidavit from an individual, even if the person has no personal knowledge of the facts, may properly serve as the vehicle for the submission of acceptable attachments which provide evidentiary proof in admissible form, like documentary evidence” … , the affidavit must nevertheless “constitute a proper foundation for the admission of the records”… . Because Kent’s director of operations did not establish that the documents annexed to his affidavit fell within the business records exception to the hearsay rule (CPLR 4518[a]), those documents were inadmissible … .

Contrary to defendant’s argument, plaintiffs do have a well-pled negligent hiring claim cognizable at law. Plaintiffs’ allegations are sufficient to put Kent on notice of their claim that Kent negligently hired, trained, supervised, and retained the guard who, plaintiffs allege, sexually assaulted Erin, and that Kent knew or should have known of the guard’s propensity to commit sexual assault. Moreover, plaintiffs can amplify these allegations in their bill of particulars … . Doe v Intercontinental Hotels Group, PLC, 2021 NY Slip Op 02063, First Dept 4-1-21

 

You might also like
THE WARRANTLESS SEARCH PROBATION CONDITION WAS NOT REASONABLY RELATED TO THE UNDERLYING OFFENSES; THE APPEAL WAIVER WAS INVALID; EVEN IF THE WAIVER WERE VALID THE IMPROPER PROBATION CONDITION COULD BE CONSIDERED ON APPEAL (FIRST DEPT).
LANDLORD DID NOT HAVE A DUTY TO INSULATE A PIPE BECAUSE IT WAS PART OF THE HEATING SYSTEM, INFANT PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED BY CONTACT WITH THE HOT PIPE (FIRST DEPT).
Even If Information About Prosecution Witness’ Recent Drug Sales Had Been Withheld in Violation of Brady/Giglio, the Withheld Information Was Not “Material” In That It Would Not Have Affected the Outcome
NO CAUSE OF ACTION FOR BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY AGAINST INDIVIDUAL COOPERATIVE BOARD MEMBERS, MEMBERS OF THE BOARD DID NOT PARTICIPATE IN A CORPORATE TORT (FIRST DEPT).
EVIDENCE OF HOW THE MURDER VICTIM FELT ABOUT DEFENDANT AND EVIDENCE OF STRIFE IN THE COUPLE’S RELATIONSHIP ADMISSIBLE TO SHOW MOTIVE AND IDENTITY.
THE PROBATION CONDITION PROHIBITING DEFENDANT FROM USING PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION WAS NOT WARRANTED BY THE UNDERLYING CONVICTION; THE ISSUE NEED NOT BE PRESERVED FOR APPEAL AND SURVIVES A WAIVER OF APPEAL (FIRST DEPT).
OPERATIVE DATE FOR POLICY COVERAGE WAS THE DATE THE POWER GENERATING TURBINE WAS TAKEN OUT OF SERVICE, EVEN THOUGH THE DAMAGE WHICH ULTIMATELY LED TO THE SHUT DOWN HAPPENED BEFORE THE POLICY PERIOD (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF’S NEGLIGENCE ACTION AGAINST A SECURITY COMPANY HIRED BY KMART SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED IN A FIGHT WITH A KMART EMPLOYEE, PLAINTIFF WAS NOT A THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARY OF THE CONTRACT BETWEEN KMART AND THE SECURITY COMPANY, PLAINTIFF DID NOT RELY ON THE PERFORMANCE OF THE SECURITY COMPANY’S DUTIES, AND THE SECURITY COMPANY DID NOT FULLY DISPLACE KMART’S DUTY TO PROVIDE SECURITY (ESPINAL FACTORS) (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

PLAINTIFF WAS STRUCK BY AN AIR CONDITIONER WHEN TWO OF THE FOUR RODS ATTACHING... TWO VOLUNTARY DISCONTINUANCES OF TWO SUCCESSIVE FORECLOSURE ACTIONS TWICE REVOKED...