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
THE BIOLOGICAL FATHER’S CONSENT TO THE ADOPTION OF HIS CHILD WAS NOT REQUIRED BECAUSE HE FAILED TO SUPPORT THE CHILD DESPITE THE MEANS TO DO SO (SECOND DEPT). ​
THE GOVERNOR’S EMERGENCY COVID-19 TOLLS OF STATUTES OF LIMITATIONS EXTENDED THE TWO-YEAR WINDOW FOR FILING CHILD VICTIMS ACT (CVA) CAUSES OF ACTION BY 228 DAYS (SECOND DEPT).
THE BANK DID NOT PRESENT ADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE OF DEFENDANTS’ DEFAULT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION (SECOND DEPT).
TRIAL JUDGE PROPERLY REFUSED TO INSTRUCT THE JURY ON THE SCARANGELLA DEFENSE WHICH PLACES THE RESPONSIBILITY FOR EMPLOYING A SAFETY DEVICE ON THE BUYER RATHER THAN THE MANUFACTURER.
PROOF OF A PROBATION VIOLATION SUBMITTED AFTER THE CLOSE OF EVIDENCE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED (SECOND DEPT).
THE DENIAL OF DEFENDANT’S REQUEST FOR A ONE-DAY ADJOURNMENT TO ALLOW HIS DAUGHTER TO TRAVEL TO COURT TO TESTIFY, COUPLED WITH THE RELATED GRANT OF THE PEOPLE’S REQUEST FOR A MISSING-WITNESS JURY INSTRUCTION, DEPRIVED DEFENDANT OF A FAIR TRIAL (SECOND DEPT).
ATTORNEY GENERAL PROPERLY SUBPOENAED DOCUMENTS RELEVANT TO WHETHER A NON-PROFIT WHICH COUNSELS WOMEN AGAINST TERMINATING THEIR PREGNANCIES WAS PRACTICING MEDICINE WITHOUT A LICENSE, HOWEVER THE SUBPOENA MUST BE TAILORED TO PROTECT THE RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION.
IN THIS REAR-END COLLISION CASE, THE DEFENDANT’S ALLEGATION HE DID NOT SEE PLAINTIFF’S BRAKE LIGHTS DID NOT RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT (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...