You are here: / / ALTHOUGH THE DEFENDANTS MAY HAVE BEEN NEGLIGENT IN HIRING THE DEFENDANT...
, ,

ALTHOUGH THE DEFENDANTS MAY HAVE BEEN NEGLIGENT IN HIRING THE DEFENDANT WHO SEXUALLY ASSAULTED THE SEVEN-YEAR-OLD PLAINTIFF, THERE WAS NO CONNECTION BETWEEN DEFENDANT’S EMPLOYMENT AND THE PLAINTIFF OR THE OFFENSE, WHICH OCCURRED NEAR PLAINTIFF’S HOME; THEREFORE THE NEGLIGENT HIRING AND RETENTION CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the negligent hiring and retention cause of action against the church defendants should have been dismissed. The complaint alleged plaintiff, who was seven years old, was abducted near her home, taken to a secluded area, and sexually assaulted by the defendant. The court noted that the church defendants may have been negligent in hiring the defendant, but there was no connection between the offense committed by the defendant and his employment:

With respect to a cause of action alleging negligent hiring and retention, “[t]he employer’s negligence lies in having placed the employee in a position to cause foreseeable harm, harm which would most probably have been spared the injured party had the employer taken reasonable care in making decisions respecting the hiring and retention of the employee” … . As such, a necessary element of a cause of action to recover damages for negligent hiring and retention is a nexus or connection between the defendant’s negligence in hiring and retaining the offending employee and the plaintiff’s injuries … . Here, the plaintiff failed to allege any such nexus, since the sexual assault occurred far from the Church’s premises, and there is no allegation in the complaint that the plaintiff had any prior contact with the alleged attacker, any prior relationship with any of the defendants, or even any knowledge, at the time of the sexual assault, that the alleged attacker was employed by the defendants. Roe v Domestic & Foreign Missionary Socy. of the Prot. Episcopal Church, 2021 NY Slip Op 05360, Second Dept 10-6-21

 

You might also like
STUDENT WAS NOT DEPRIVED OF HIS RIGHT TO HAVE AN ATTORNEY PRESENT AT A COLLEGE DISCIPLINARY HEARING BY THE COLLEGE’S REFUSAL TO ADJOURN THE MATTER FOR THREE HOURS SO THE ATTORNEY COULD ATTEND, STUDENT WAS PROPERLY FOUND RESPONSIBLE FOR THE DISCIPLINARY CHARGES AND WAS PROPERLY EXPELLED (SECOND DEPT).
RECORDS KEPT BY A VOLUNTEER AMBULANCE NOT-FOR-PROFIT CORPORATION NOT SUBJECT TO DISCLOSURE PURSUANT TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION LAW (FOIL) BECAUSE THE CORPORATION IS NOT A GOVERNMENTAL ENTITY (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF WAS A PASSENGER IN DEFENDANT MC RAE’S VEHICLE WHEN MC RAE’S VEHICLE WAS STRUCK FROM BEHIND; THE ALLEGATION THAT MC RAE STOPPED FOR NO APPARENT REASON RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER MC CRAE WAS COMPARATIVELY NEGLIGENT; COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE WILL PRECLUDE SUMMARY JUDGMENT WITH RESPECT TO CROSS CLAIMS BETWEEN DEFENDANTS (SECOND DEPT).
THE EVIDENCE DID NOT SUPPORT THE TERMINATION OF MOTHER’S PARENTAL RIGHTS; PETITIONER MADE NO EFFORT TO HELP MOTHER MAKE THE TRIAL DISCHARGE WORK (SECOND DEPT).
THE COMPLAINT STATED CAUSES OF ACTION PURSUANT TO 18 USC 1983 AGAINST INDIVIDUAL POLICE OFFICERS FOR DEPRIVING PLAINTIFF OF HIS RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL AND HIS RIGHT TO BE FREE FROM CONTINUED DETENTION (SECOND DEPT). ​
FATHER, WHO WAS INCARCERATED, SHOULD HAVE BEEN PRODUCED FOR THE PROCEEDING TO APPOINT A GUARDIAN FOR THE CHILD, NEW HEARING ORDERED (SECOND DEPT). ​
THE FORUM SELECTION CLAUSE IN THE NURSING HOME ADMISSION AGREEMENT WAS VALID AND ENFORCEABLE (SECOND DEPT).
Plaintiff Did Not Demonstrate Standing—No Proof Underlying Debt Was Transferred to the Plaintiff Along with the Mortgage

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

BY ARGUING HE DID NOT KNOW THE WEAPON AND AMMUNITION WERE IN THE TRUCK HE WAS... THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO INCLUDE...