You are here: / / Defendant-Employer’s Motion for Summary Judgment Properly Denied—Defendant...
,

Defendant-Employer’s Motion for Summary Judgment Properly Denied—Defendant Did Not Submit Proof that Defendant’s Employee Was Not Acting Within the Scope of Employment When Employee Removed and Disseminated Photos from Plaintiff’s Cell Phone and Defendant Did Not Submit Proof Demonstrating It Did Not Know of the Employee’s Propensity for Such Conduct

The Second Department determined the motion for summary judgment made by defendant-employer, R & K,  was properly denied. The plaintiff alleged that defendant’s employee, Press, removed and disseminated photographs of her from a cell phone plaintiff had left with defendant for repair.  The Second Department noted that an employer can be liable for the negligence and the intentional torts of an employee, provided that the employee was acting within the scope of employment.  The court explained the criteria for vicarious liability under the doctrine of respondeat superior as well as direct liability for negligent hiring and supervision:

“Pursuant to the doctrine of respondeat superior, an employer can be held vicariously liable for torts committed by an employee acting within the scope of employment” … . “Intentional torts as well as negligent acts may fall within the scope of employment” … . Liability will not attach for torts committed by an employee acting solely for personal motives unrelated to the furtherance of the employer’s business …, or for conduct which could not have been reasonably expected by the employer … .

Here, R & K failed to establish, prima facie, that it could not be held vicariously liable for Press’s alleged acts, as it submitted no transcripts of testimony or affidavits from any of its employees, or business records, to support its contention that Press was acting outside the scope of his employment when he accessed and disseminated photographs from the plaintiff’s cell phone. * * *

“To establish a cause of action based on negligent hiring and supervision, it must be shown that the employer knew or should have known of the employee’s propensity for the conduct which caused the injury” … . R & K failed to submit any proof establishing that it did not know and should not have known about Press’s alleged propensity to engage in the conduct at issue here, or that it was not negligent in hiring Press … . Hoffman v Verizon Wireless Inc, 2015 NY Slip Op 01416, 2nd Dept 2-18-15

 

You might also like
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT BASED UPON THE RIGHT OF SEPULCHER SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED; DEFENDANT HOSPITAL’S MOTION TO DISMISS THE CAUSE OF ACTION FOR NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED.
INSURED’S REFUSAL TO COOPERATE WITH INSURER RELIEVED INSURER OF LIABILITY FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT AGAINST THE INSURED.
PLAINTIFF AND DEFENDANTS ARE NEIGHBORS; PRIVATE NUISANCE CAUSES OF ACTION BASED UPON DEFENDANTS’ YEARLY FIREWORKS DISPLAYS AND EXCESSIVE NOISE FROM POOL EQUIPMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED; A TRESPASS CAUSE OF ACTION BASED UPON DEBRIS FROM THE FIREWORKS FALLING ON PLAINTIFF’S PROPERTY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT). ​
APPLICATION TO ADD HANDGUNS TO PISTOL PERMIT PROPERLY DENIED BASED UPON PETITIONER’S CRIMINAL HISTORY, DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ACTION IS THE PROPER PROCEEDING IN WHICH TO CHALLENGE THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF A STATUTE.
MOTHER BROUGHT A PETITION TO MODIFY CUSTODY AND ALLEGED SHE DID NOT CONSENT TO THE STIPULATION UNDERLYING THE EXISTING CUSTODY ORDER; BECAUSE THE STIPULATION WAS NOT IN THE RECORD AND ITS TERMS WERE NOT IN THE CUSTODY ORDER, A HEARING WAS REQUIRED (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF TRIPPED OVER A PIECE OF PLYWOOD COVERING A SMALL HOLE; DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THAT IT LACKED CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE CONDITION; THE LABOR LAW 200 CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).
ALTHOUGH THE DISPUTE BETWEEN PLAINTIFF AND A RABBI INVOLVED THE PURCHASE OF TORAH BOOKS AND THE JEWISH CUSTOM OF SHIDUCH, THE MATTER COULD BE DECIDED BASED ON NEUTRAL PRINCIPLES OF LAW IN THE STATE COURTS (SECOND DEPT).
DESIGNATING PETITION PROPERLY INVALIDATED AND THE CANDIDATE’S NAME WAS PROPERLY STRUCK FROM THE PRIMARY BALLOT, THE CANDIDATE’S NAME APPEARED ON DESIGNATING PETITIONS FOR TWO DIFFERENT PUBLIC OFFICES WHICH PRESUMPTIVELY MISLED THE PUBLIC (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

Questions of Fact Raised Re: Whether Property Owner Liable for Work Done by... Criteria for Discovery in a Special Proceeding Explained/Criteria for Leave...