You are here: / / Question of Fact Whether City Liable for Shooting by an Off-Duty Police...
, ,

Question of Fact Whether City Liable for Shooting by an Off-Duty Police Officer Under Negligent Hiring, Retention and Supervision Theory—Akin to Negligently Entrusting a Dangerous Instrumentality (Weapon) to Another

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Renwick, determined plaintiff had raised a question of fact whether the city was liable for the death of the police officer’s girlfriend (plaintiff’s decedent) under a negligent hiring/retention/supervision theory. The shooting occurred when the officer, Maselli, was off duty in his home. Plaintiff alleged the city had notice of Maselli’s violent propensities:

In this case, the alleged duty owed to plaintiff stems from New York’s long recognized tort of negligent hiring and retention … . This tort applies equally to municipalities and private employers … . This theory of employer liability should be distinguished from the established legal doctrine of “respondeat superior,” where an employer is held liable for the wrongs or negligence of an employee acting within the scope of the employee’s duties or in furtherance of the employer’s interests … . In contrast, under the theory of negligent hiring and retention, an employer may be liable for the acts of an employee acting outside the scope of his or her employment … .

Thus, in this case, plaintiffs’ negligence claims do not depend on whether Maselli acted within the scope of his employment or whether the City participated in, authorized, or ratified Maselli’s tortious conduct. Rather, the alleged breach of duty stems from the claim that during Maselli’s employment with the City, the City became aware or should have become aware of problems with Maselli that indicated he was unfit (i.e. possessed violent propensities), that the City failed to take further action such as an investigation, discharge, or reassignment, and that plaintiff’s damages were caused by the City’s negligent retention, or supervision of Maselli.

The negligent retention or supervision of a police officer, which results in the employee having possession of a dangerous instrumentality, is similar to if not indistinguishable from the tort of entrusting a dangerous instrumentality to another. The duty analysis should be the same. “One who supplies directly or through a third person a chattel for the use of another whom the supplier knows or has reason to know to be likely because of his youth, inexperience, or otherwise, to use it in a manner involving unreasonable risk of physical harm to himself and others whom the supplier should expect to share in or be endangered by its use, is subject to liability for physical harm resulting to them” … . The duty not to entrust a gun to a dangerous or incompetent police officer thus extends to any person injured as a result of the negligent entrustment. Gonzalez v City of the New York, 2015 NY Slip Op 06869, 1st Dept 9-22-15

 

You might also like
HERE THE CLOSE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE NON-SIGNATORY AND THE PARTY TO THE AGREEMENT WARRANTED FINDING THAT THE NON-SIGNATORY WAS BOUND BY THE FORUM SELECTION CLAUSE IN THE AGREEMENT (FIRST DEPT).
Accident Unforeseeable as a Matter of Law
FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE NOTICE OF DEFAULT REQUIREMENTS IN THE BUILDING-CONSTRUCTION BOND PRECLUDED RECOVERY UNDER THE BOND FOR CONSTRUCTION DELAYS (FIRST DEPT).
BIG APPLE MAP RAISED QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE CITY WAS AWARE OF MANHOLE-SIDEWALK DEFECT, SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN AWARDED TO THE CITY IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE.
No Common Law Negligence Cause of Action to Recover for Injuries Caused by Dog, Even Where Dog Owner May Be Negligent
BECAUSE THE RESPONDENT CREATED AMBIGUITY ABOUT WHETHER IT WAS STILL CONSIDERING PETITIONER’S FOIL REQUEST AFTER EXPIRATION OF THE 10-DAY CONSTRUCTIVE-DENIAL PERIOD, THE FOUR-MONTH PERIOD FOR COMMENCING AN ARTICLE 78 PROCEEDING DID NOT START ON THE CONSTRUCTIVE-DENIAL DATE; THE ARTICLE 78 PROCEEDING WAS TIMELY COMMENCED (FIRST DEPT).
THE PROOF THE NOTICE OF FORECLOSURE WAS MAILED TO DEFENDANT WAS INADEQUATE AND THE NOTICE DID NOT INCLUDE A STATEMENT REQUIRED BY RPAPL 1304; THEREFORE THE BANK’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT). ​
THERE WAS NO RECORD DEFENSE COUNSEL WAS INFORMED OF THE JURY NOTE AND NO RECORD THE JUDGE RESPONDED TO THE NOTE, A MODE OF PROCEEDINGS ERROR; ALTHOUGH THE NOTE REFERRED ONLY TO ONE COUNT, THE THREE COUNTS WERE FACTUALLY CONNECTED REQUIRING A NEW TRIAL (FIRST 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

Question of Fact Whether Former Tenants Entitled to Pass Apartment to Their... Principal’s Failure to Follow the Performance-Rating Procedures Required...