You are here: / / THE COMPLAINT STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION OF DEFENDANT...
,

THE COMPLAINT STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION OF DEFENDANT INVESTMENT BANK’S EMPLOYEE WHO ALLEGEDLY DEFRAUDED PLAINTIFFS OF $25 MILLION TO COVER THE EMPLOYEE’S LOSSES; THE ARGUMENT THAT PLAINTIFFS COULD NOT SUE THE BANK BECAUSE THEY WERE NOT BANK CUSTOMERS WAS REJECTED (CT APP).

​The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Cannataro, over a two-judge dissent, reversing the appellate division, determined plaintiffs (charitable foundation) stated a cause of action against defendants (investment bank) for negligent supervision of an employee who allegedly defrauded the foundation of $25 million. Plaintiffs were not customers of defendants (investment bank). Rather, plaintiffs were approached by defendants’ employee to invest $25 million, allegedly as part of a fraudulent scheme to cover the employee’s losses. The argument that plaintiffs could not sue because they were not defendants’ customers was rejected by the majority:

… [T]he complaint adequately alleged that defendants were on notice of the employee’s propensity to commit fraud prior to his interactions with plaintiffs and their resulting losses. * * *

When an employer has notice of its employee’s propensity to engage in tortious conduct, yet retains and fails to reasonably supervise such employee, the employer may become liable for injuries thereafter proximately caused by its negligent supervision and retention … . As every Department of the Appellate Division has recognized, a defendant is on notice of an employee’s propensity to engage in tortious conduct when it knows or should know of the employee’s tendency to engage in such conduct … . * * *

… [P]laintiffs were not customers of defendants, as that term is typically understood, but plaintiffs alleged that they were prospective customers who were solicited by [defendants’ employee] to participate in a financing arrangement related to one of defendants’ legitimate business deals, supported by defendants’ genuine documentation and information, which he was given access to by defendants as part of his employment. We hold that these allegations support the existence of a duty on the part of defendants to non-negligently supervise [the employee] for plaintiff’s benefit … . Moore Charitable Found. v PJT Partners, Inc., 2023 NY Slip Op 03185, CtApp 6-13-23

Practice Point: Here the complaint stated a cause of action for negligent supervision against an investment bank based on fraud allegedly committed by a bank employee, even though the plaintiffs were not customers of the bank. The Court of Appeals found a duty to supervise the employee for the plaintiffs’ benefit.

 

You might also like
THE SOLE REMEDY PROVISION IN THE REPRESENTATIONS AND WARRANTIES AGREEMENT IN THIS RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE-BACKED SECURITIES CASE WAS VALID AND ENFORCEABLE; THE GROSS NEGLIGENCE PUBLIC POLICY RULE DOES NOT APPLY WHERE THE SOLE REMEDY PROVISION IMPOSES REASONABLE LIMITATIONS ON LIABILITY OR REMEDIES (CT APP).
ALTHOUGH RPAPL 1320-a, ENACTED WHILE THIS APPEAL WAS PENDING, HAS CHANGED THINGS, THE DEFENDANTS’ LACK-OF-STANDING DEFENSE WAS WAIVED BECAUSE IT WAS NOT RAISED IN THEIR ANSWERS OR PRE-ANSWER MOTIONS; THE BANK’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT WAS PROPERLY GRANTED (CT APP).
A GENERIC NEW YORK CHOICE OF LAW PROVISION IN A CONTRACT DOES NOT TRANSFORM ALL NEW YORK STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS INTO CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATIONS, HERE THE CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT CONTRACT DID NOT MENTION BOND REQUIREMENTS UNDER THE LIEN LAW AND THE CHOICE OF LAW PROVISION COULD NOT BE USED TO READ THE LIEN LAW REQUIREMENT INTO THE CONTRACT (CT APP).
BY CLICKING ON CONTRACT TERMS ON HER SMART PHONE, PLAINTIFF AGREED TO ARBITRATE HER PERSONAL INJURY CLAIM AGAINST UBER; PLAINTIFF ALLEGED INJURY AFTER AN UBER DRIVER LEFT HER OFF IN TRAFFIC (CT APP).
THE STANDARD FOR AN INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT’S REVIEW OF A SENTENCE CLARIFIED (CT APP).
THE ACT OF SIMPLE POSSESSSION OF A WEAPON WAS COMPLETE BEFORE THE WEAPON WAS USED TO SHOOT THE VICTIM DURING A ROBBERY; THEREFORE, DESPITE THE OVERLAP OF THE ELEMENTS OF SIMPLE POSSESSION OF A WEAPON AND THE ELEMENTS OF FELONY MURDER AND ROBBERY, CONSECUTIVE SENTENCES WERE PROPERLY IMPOSED (CT APP).
APPEALS AS OF RIGHT MAY NOT BE DISMISSED BASED UPON THE DEPORTATION OF APPELLANT; PERMISSIVE APPEALS, HOWEVER, ARE SUBJECT TO DISCRETIONARY DISMISSAL ON THAT GROUND.
THE APPELLATE DIVISION’S VACATION OF DEFENDANT’S FIRST DEGREE MURDER CONVICTION WAS AFFIRMED; THE PEOPLE DID NOT PROVE THE “RELISHING THE INFLICTION OF EXTREME PAIN” ELEMENT (CT APP).

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

THE FRAUDULENT-CONVEYANCE CAUSES OF ACTION INVOLVED CONNECTICUT PROPERTIES AND... THE JUDGE DID NOT CONDUCT THE REQUIRED “SEARCHING INQUIRY” BEFORE...