You are here: / / A MUNICIPALITY CANNOT BE SUED FOR NEGLIGENT HIRING, RETENTION, TRAINING...
, ,

A MUNICIPALITY CANNOT BE SUED FOR NEGLIGENT HIRING, RETENTION, TRAINING AND SUPERVISION BASED UPON EMPLOYEES’ ACTIONS ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THEIR EMPLOYMENT; THE PROPER THEORY IS RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined that a municipality cannot be sued for negligent hiring, retention, training and supervision based upon actions taken by employees within the scope of their employment. In that case, the municipality can only be sued under a respondeat superior theory. Here plaintiff sued the City of Buffalo and police officers for actions relating to plaintiff’s arrest:

We agree with defendants that the court erred in denying their motion with respect to the … causes of action against the City of Buffalo, sounding in negligent hiring, negligent retention, and negligent training and supervision … . … [I]n those causes of action plaintiff alleges that the City of Buffalo was negligent in the hiring, retention and training and supervision of [officers] Moriarity and Bridgett, and plaintiff further alleges that Moriarity and Bridgett were acting in their capacities as employees of the City of Buffalo. It is well settled … that “where an employee is acting within the scope of [their] employment, the employer is liable for the employee’s negligence under a theory of respondeat superior and no claim may proceed against the employer for negligent hiring, retention, supervision, or training” … . Taylor, 2024 NY Slip Op 03632, Fourth Dept 7-3-24

Practice Point: A municipality cannot be sued for negligent hiring, retention, training and supervision when the employees’ actions are alleged to have been within the scope of their employment. The municipality should be sued under a respondeat superior theory.

 

You might also like
PLAINTIFF WAS BROUGHT TO THE HOSPITAL PURSUANT TO THE MENTAL HYGIENE LAW AFTER THREATENING FAMILY MEMBERS AND KILLING A DOG; DEFENDANTS RELEASED PLAINTIFF THE SAME DAY AND PLAINTIFF KILLED THE FAMILY MEMBERS; PLAINTIFF ENTERED A PLEA OF NOT RESPONSIBLE BY REASON OF MENTAL ILLNESS; THE RULE PROHIBITING A PLAINTIFF FROM TAKING ADVANTAGE OF HIS OWN WRONG DID NOT APPLY AND DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE WAS PROPERLY DENIED (FOURTH DEPT).
BAD FAITH DISCLAIMER ACTION BROUGHT AFTER INJURED PLAINTIFFS WERE ASSIGNED THE INSURED’S RIGHTS UNDER THE POLICY NOT BARRED BY RES JUDICATA, PLAINTIFFS DID NOT HAVE STANDING TO BRING THE BAD FAITH ACTION UNTIL THE RIGHTS WERE ASSIGNED (FOURTH DEPT). ​
THE TAKING BY EMINENT DOMAIN OF PETITIONER’S DECOMMISSIONED ELECTRIC GENERATING STATION AND WATER INTAKE STRUCTURES ON THE NIAGARA RIVER SERVED A PUBLIC PURPOSE; THE DISSENT ARGUED THE TOWN SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO TAKE PROPERTY AND THEN USE IT FOR EXACTLY THE SAME PURPOSE FOR WHICH THE PETITIONER IS NOW USING IT, I.E., ALLOWING BUSINESSES ACCESS TO INEXPENSIVE RAW WATER (FOURTH DEPT).
No Liability for Injury to Child Who Suddenly Darted Out Into Traffic
SUPREME COURT PROPERLY CONSOLIDATED TWO INDICTMENTS, CRITERIA EXPLAINED; THERE WAS A COMPREHENSIVE DISSENT (FOURTH DEPT).
120-Day Time Limit for Bringing a Summary Judgment Motion Properly Extended by Stipulation
HERE PLAINTIFFS ALLEGED THEY WERE SEXUALLY ABUSED DECADES AGO IN MASSACHUSETTS AND SUED UNDER THE CHILD VICTIMS ACT WHICH SERVES TO EXTEND THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS; ORDINARILY THE BORROWING STATUTE APPLIES TO OUT-OF-STATE TORTS REQUIRING THE ACTION TO BE TIMELY UNDER BOTH NEW YORK AND THE FOREIGN STATE’S LAWS; HERE THE “RESIDENT EXCEPTION” APPLIED BECAUSE THE PLAINTIFF’S WERE NEW YORK RESIDENTS AT THE TIME OF THE ALLEGED ABUSE; THEREFORE THE ACTION NEED ONLY BE TIMELY UNDER NEW YORK’S CHILD VICTIMS ACT (FOURTH DEPT).
THE CAUSES OF ACTION FOR A STIGMA-PLUS 43 USC 1983 VIOLATION AND DEFAMATION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED; THE CAUSES OF ACTION WERE BASED UPON A STATEMENT BY THE SCHOOL DISTRICT ACCUSING PLAINTIFF OF DISREGARDING COVID POLICY AND ENDANGERING STUDENTS; PLAINTIFF DID NOT SUFFER ECONOMIC HARM AND THE STATEMENT WAS PRIVILEGED (FOURTH 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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

THE COURT’S PRIOR ORDER STATED FATHER’S COMPLIANCE FOR SIX MONTHS... HERE THE APPELLATE DIVISION, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, ADJUDICATED DEFENDANT...