You are here: / / THE FACT THAT THE EMPLOYER MAY BE VICARIOUSLY LIABLE FOR AN EMPLOYEE’S...
, ,

THE FACT THAT THE EMPLOYER MAY BE VICARIOUSLY LIABLE FOR AN EMPLOYEE’S NEGLIGENCE DOES NOT WARRANT DISMISSAL OF THE ACTION AGAINST THE EMPLOYEE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined an employee defendant should not have been granted summary judgment on the ground her employer (New Beginnings) was vicariously liable for the employee’s negligence. Allegedly, plaintiff was injured receiving a “facial treatment” from the employee (Wallace):

… [T]he doctrine of respondeat superior does not entitle Wallace to summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against her. “While an employer may be vicariously liable for the torts of its employee while acting within the scope of his or her employment, a claim against the employer does not necessarily preclude a separate claim against the employee” … . “It is ordinarily immaterial to an agent’s liability that the agent’s tortious conduct may, additionally, subject the principal to liability” (Restatement [Third] of Agency § 7.01[b]). “It is consistent with encouraging responsible conduct by individuals to impose individual liability on an agent for the agent’s torts although the agent’s conduct may also subject the principal to liability” … . Castellazzo v David’s New Beginnings, LLC, 2026 NY Slip Op 02625, Second Dept 4-29-26

Practice Point: The fact that an employer may be vicariously liable for an employee’s negligence does not preclude a suit against both.

 

You might also like
DEFENDANT HAD PLED GUILTY TO SCALDING A DISABLED CHILD BY BATHING HER IN WATER THAT WAS TOO HOT, AT THE SUBSEQUENT CIVIL TRIAL DEFENDANT WAS ALLOWED TO CROSS-EXAMINE PLAINTIFF’S EXPERTS ABOUT THE EVIDENCE THAT THE CHILD SUFFERED AN ALLERGIC REACTION AND HAD NOT BEEN SCALDED, THE DEFENSE VERDICT WAS AFFIRMED, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION IN LIMINE REQUESTING THAT THE GUILTY PLEA BE GIVEN COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL EFFECT AND THAT THE PLAINTIFF BE PRECLUDED FROM PRESENTING EVIDENCE OF THE ALLERGIC REACTION WAS ACTUALLY AN UNTIMELY SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION, DESPITE SUPREME COURT’S GRANTING OF THE MOTION, THE DEFENSE VERDICT MAKES ANY FURTHER CONSIDERATION OF THE ERROR UNNECESSARY (SECOND DEPT).
MOTION TO DISMISS MADE BY DECEASED DEFENDANT’S FORMER ATTORNEY PURPORTEDLY ON DECEDENT’S BEHALF WAS A NULLITY, MOTIONS TO DISMISS MADE BY OTHER DEFENDANTS ARGUING THAT PLAINTIFFS DID NOT TAKE TIMELY STEPS TO SUBSTITUTE A REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE DECEASED DEFENDANT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
BY SUBMITTING PLAINTIFF’S DEPOSITION TESTIMONY IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION DEFENDANT FAILED TO MAKE OUT A PRIMA FACIE CASE IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, THE MOTION WAS PROPERLY DENIED WITHOUT CONSIDERATION OF THE OPPOSING PAPERS (SECOND DEPT).
E-Mail Met All Criteria for a Stipulation of Settlement Including the “Subscribed Writing” Requirement
Defendant Was Apparently Erroneously Sentenced to Five Years When the Correct Sentence Was 15 Years—Pursuant to a Resettlement of the Sentencing Transcript Two Months After Defendant’s Release, He Was Resentenced to 15 Years—Because Defendant Had a Legitimate Expectation of Finality Re: the Five-Year Sentence, the Resentence Violated the Double Jeopardy Clause
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE, DEFENDANT PULLED IN FRONT OF PLAINTIFF AFTER TURNING ON HIS TURN SIGNAL BUT PLAINTIFF ONLY HAD ONE OR TWO SECONDS TO REACT (SECOND DEPT).
NYS DIVISION OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY RENEWAL (DHCR) ACTED ARBITRARILY AND CAPRICIOUSLY WHEN IT RULED THE MAXIMUM COLLECTIBLE RENT FOR AN APARTMENT WAS $125 PER MONTH, THE RENT HAD REMAINED LOW FOR DECADES BECAUSE THE APARTMENT HOUSE HAD BEEN OWNED AND RESIDED IN BY FAMILY MEMBERS (SECOND DEPT).
IN THIS CEILING-COLLAPSE CASE, THE NEGLIGENCE PER SE CAUSE OF ACTION BASED ON THE MULTIPLE DWELLING LAW AND THE RES IPSA LOQUITUR CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (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 DID NOT PROVE THE RPAPL 1304 NOTICE OF FORECLOSURE WAS PROPERTY MAILED... THE DEFENDANTS’ PRE-ANSWER MOTION TO DISMISS EXTENDED THE TIME FOR PLAINTIFFS...