You are here: / / BAR NOT LIABLE FOR ASSAULT BY SECURITY GUARD WHO WAS AN INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR,...

BAR NOT LIABLE FOR ASSAULT BY SECURITY GUARD WHO WAS AN INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR, NOT AN EMPLOYEE.

The First Department determined defendant bar (BR Guest’s) was not vicariously liable for an assault on plaintiff by a security guard (DiPaola), who was an independent contractor:

The record establishes that DiPaola, a security guard, was an independent contractor when the incident occurred … . The evidence shows that DiPaola was not on BR Guest’s payroll, did not receive health insurance or other fringe benefits, and that BR Guest contracted for his services as a security guard from defendant Presidium, LLC … .

The record reveals nothing more than general supervisory control, which cannot form the basis for imposing liability against BR Guest or Hanson, who was the vice president of BR Guest Inc., for plaintiff’s injuries sustained as a result of DiPaola’s assault … . The fact that BR Guest decided the number of security guards needed on a particular night and where on the premises the guards should be posted at any given time, and gave them instructions relating to the manner in which they performed their work does not render the security guards working at the premises special employees … . McLaughlan v BR Guest, Inc., 2017 NY Slip Op 02906, 1st Dept 4-13-17

 

INTENTIONAL TORTS (BAR NOT LIABLE FOR ASSAULT BY SECURITY GUARD WHO WAS AN INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR, NOT AN EMPLOYEE)/ASSAULT (INTENTIONAL TORT, BAR NOT LIABLE FOR ASSAULT BY SECURITY GUARD WHO WAS AN INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR, NOT AN EMPLOYEE)/EMPLOYMENT LAW (INTENTIONAL TORT, BAR NOT LIABLE FOR ASSAULT BY SECURITY GUARD WHO WAS AN INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR, NOT AN EMPLOYEE)/ASSAULT (INTENTIONAL TORT, BAR NOT LIABLE FOR ASSAULT BY SECURITY GUARD WHO WAS AN INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR, NOT AN EMPLOYEE)/SECURITY GUARDS  (INTENTIONAL TORT, BAR NOT LIABLE FOR ASSAULT BY SECURITY GUARD WHO WAS AN INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR, NOT AN EMPLOYEE)

You might also like
DEFENDANT BASED HIS DECISION TO PLEAD GUILTY, IN PART, ON INACCURATE INFORMATION ABOUT HIS SENTENCING EXPOSURE; GUILTY PLEAS VACATED (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED WHEN UNSECURED FENCE PANELS FELL ON HIM; HIS INJURIES ARE COVERED UNDER LABOR LAW 240(1) (FIRST DEPT). ​
PLAINTIFF FELL THROUGH AN OPENING IN THE FLOOR WHEN THE PLYWOOD COVERING THE OPENING SHIFTED; PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION, DEFENDANTS GENERAL CONTRACTOR AND LESSEE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED SUMMARY JUDGMENT, DEFENDANT OUT OF POSSESSION LANDLORD SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED SUMMARY JUDGMENT, CRITERIA EXPLAINED (FIRST DEPT).
ALTHOUGH THE EXCUSE WAS NOT ADEQUATE PETITIONER’S APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; RESPONDENTS HAD TIMELY NOTICE OF THE INCIDENT AND DEMONSTRATED NO PREJUDICE FROM THE DELAY (FIRST DEPT).
QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER THE BUILDING MANAGEMENT COMPANY WAS LIABLE, PURSUANT TO ESPINAL FACTORS, FOR INFANT PLAINTIFF’S FALL INTO THE ELEVATOR SHAFT (FIRST DEPT).
RECORDS OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE CIVILIAN COMPLAINT REVIEW BOARD ARE POLICE OFFICER PERSONNEL RECORDS WHICH ARE EXEMPT FROM A FREEDOM OF INFORMATION LAW REQUEST.
RENOVATION WORK ON DEFENDANTS’ TOWNHOUSE RENDERED PLAINTIFFS’ TOWNHOUSE, WHICH WAS NEXT DOOR, UNINHABITABLE; A LICENSE AGREEMENT WHICH GRANTED DEFENDANTS ACCESS TO PLAINTIFFS’ TOWNHOUSE INCLUDED A LIQUIDATED DAMAGES PROVISION WHICH WAS VALID AND ENFORCEABLE; PLAINTIFFS’ ACTION SOUGHT SOME EQUITABLE RELIEF BUT PRIMARILY SOUGHT MONEY DAMAGES; THEREFORE PLANTIFFS’ DEMAND FOR A JURY TRIAL SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN STRUCK (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

ISSUE OF FACT ABOUT MEANING OF AN EXCLUSION IN A FLOOD INSURANCE POLICY. QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER HOMEOWNER’S EXEMPTION APPLIED (LABOR LAW 240...