You are here: / / DEFENDANT PIZZA-DELIVERY DRIVER WAS NOT ACTING WITHIN THE SCOPE OF HIS...
,

DEFENDANT PIZZA-DELIVERY DRIVER WAS NOT ACTING WITHIN THE SCOPE OF HIS EMPLOYMENT WHEN HE ALLEGELDY RESISTED ARREST AND INJURED PLAINTIFF POLICE OFFICER; THE OFFICER’S SUIT AGAINST THE DRIVER’S EMPLOYER, UNDER VICARIOUS LIABILITY AND NEGLIGENT HIRING THEORIES, SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff-police officer’s (Maldonado’s) action against Domino’s Pizza (DP) as the employer of defendant pizza-delivery-driver (Alum) should have been dismissed. Maldonado pulled Alum over to issue a ticket for a defective headlight. Alum allegedly became violent and injured Maldonado sued DP under vicarious-liability theory negligent hiring-supervision theories. The Second Department held Alum was not acting within the scope of his employment when he resisted arrest, DP demonstrate it did not have knowledge or notice that Alum had a propensity for violence:

… [DP demonstrated] that Allum’s allegedly tortious conduct was not within the scope of his employment. … DP demonstrated that the violent conduct displayed by Allum during the course of receiving a ticket for a defective headlight was not reasonably foreseeable or incidental to the furtherance of DP’s business interests and that Allum was not authorized to use force to effectuate the goals and duties of his employment … . …

… DP demonstrated its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the cause of action to recover damages for negligent hiring and negligent supervision. In this regard, DP demonstrated that it did not have knowledge, or notice, of Allum’s propensity for the violent conduct that resulted in Maldonado’s injury … . Moreover, “[t]here is no common-law duty to institute specific procedures for hiring employees unless the employer knows of facts that would lead a reasonably prudent person to investigate the prospective employee” … . Maldonado v Allum, 2022 NY Slip Op 04798, Second Dept 8-3-22

Practice Point: An employer will not be liable for the tortious behavior of an employee unless the employee is acting within the scope of his employment. Here a pizza-delivery driver allegedly resisted arrest after a traffic stop and injured plaintiff police officer. The employer was not liable for the violent behavior of the employee under either a vicarious liability or negligent hiring theory.

 

You might also like
Contract Giving Plaintiff Option to Sell the Property Back to the Defendants If Rezoning Not Obtained Was Ambiguous About When the Option Must Be Exercised Raising a Question of Fact About the Timeliness of Plaintiff’s Exercise of the Option
42 USC 1983 IS NOT SUBJECT TO THE MUNICIPAL-LAW NOTICE OF CLAIM REQUIREMENT; THE NOTICE OF THE MALICIOUS PROSECUTION ACTION WAS TIMELY; THE PETITION TO FILE LATE NOTICES OF CLAIM FOR THE REMAINING STATE LAW CLAIMS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED; THE EXCUSES WERE NOT VALID AND THE VILLAGE DID NOT HAVE TIMELY NOTICE OF THE CLAIMS SIMPLY BY VIRTUE OF THE POLICE REPORT AND THE INVOLVEMENT OF A POLICE OFFICER (SECOND DEPT).
Criteria for Setting Aside a Foreclosure Sale Explained—Not Met Here
PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT WAS KILLED WHEN DEFENDANT DRIVER, WHO WAS BEING CHASED BY THE POLICE DEFENDANTS, COLLIDED WITH PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT’S VEHICLE; THE DEFENSE VERDICT IN THE “RECKLESS DISREGARD” ACTION AGAINST THE POLICE WAS REVERSED BECAUSE OF THE OMISSION OF RELEVANT EVIDENCE AND THE ADMISSION OF PREJUDICIAL EVIDENCE; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (SECOND DEPT).
THE RELIGIOUS NOT-FOR-PROFIT CORPORATION, THE OWNER OF THE RESIDENCE PROVIDED FOR THE TORAH READER AND HIS FAMILY, WAS ENTITLED TO A REAL-PROPERTY-TAX EXEMPTION (SECOND DEPT).
CANCELLATION AND DISCHARGE OF A MORTGAGE PURSUANT TO RPAPL 1501 (4) MUST BE SOUGHT BY AN ACTION OR COUNTERCLAIM, NOT BY A MOTION (SECOND DEPT).
FOUR MONTH STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS APPLIED TO THE DECISION BY THE PLANNING BOARD THAT NO ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT WAS NECESSARY, PETITION TO ANNUL THAT DECISION WAS UNTIMELY (SECOND DEPT). ​
PLAINTIFF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE GRAVES AMENDMENT, WHICH RELIEVES THE OWNER OF A LEASED VEHICLE FROM LIABILITY FOR A TRAFFIC ACCIDENT, DID NOT APPLY TO THE DEFENDANT OWNER; THEREFORE PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND 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 DETAINED BY DEFENDANT HOME DEPOT’S EMPLOYEE BASED ON A FALSE... PLAINTIFF IN THIS LABOR LAW 240(1) ACTION FELL FROM AN INVERTED BUCKET HE WAS...