Avent v. Headley

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Avent v. Headley

252 A.D.2d 565, 675 N.Y.S.2d 297, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8640

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedJuly 27, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 252 A.D.2d 565 (Avent v. Headley) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Avent v. Headley, 252 A.D.2d 565, 675 N.Y.S.2d 297, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8640 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Jackson, J.), dated June 12, 1997, which granted the motion of the defendant Catholic Medical Center of Brooklyn and Queens, St. Mary’s Hospital Division, for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly determined that there were no issues of fact with respect to whether the defendant Catholic Medical Center of Brooklyn and Queens, St. Mary’s Hospital Division (hereinafter the Hospital) was vicariously liable for the acts committed by its employee (see, Mataxas v North Shore Univ. Hosp., 211 AD2d 762; Kirkman v Astoria Gen. Hosp., 204 AD2d 401; Heindel v Bowery Sav. Bank, 138 AD2d 787). In addition, even though an employer can be held liable under a theory of negligent supervision where it cannot be held vicariously liable, there was no evidence submitted by the plaintiff to establish that the Hospital was aware or should have been aware of the employee’s propensity for the conduct which allegedly caused the plaintiff’s injury (see, Kenneth R. v Roman Catholic Diocese, 229 AD2d 159, cert denied 522 US 967; Mataxas v North Shore Univ. Hosp., supra; Kirkman v Astoria Gen. Hosp., supra). Bracken, J. P., Thompson, Sullivan and Pizzuto, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

—In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Jackson, J.), dated June 12, 1997, which granted the motion of the defendant Catholic Medical Center of Brooklyn and Queens, St. Mary’s Hospital Division, for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly determined that there were no issues of fact with respect to whether the defendant Catholic Medical Center of Brooklyn and Queens, St. Mary’s Hospital Division (hereinafter the Hospital) was vicariously liable for the acts committed by its employee (see, Mataxas v North Shore Univ. Hosp., 211 AD2d 762; Kirkman v Astoria Gen. Hosp., 204 AD2d 401; Heindel v Bowery Sav. Bank, 138 AD2d 787). In addition, even though an employer can be held liable under a theory of negligent supervision where it cannot be held vicariously liable, there was no evidence submitted by the plaintiff to establish that the Hospital was aware or should have been aware of the employee’s propensity for the conduct which allegedly caused the plaintiff’s injury (see, Kenneth R. v Roman Catholic Diocese, 229 AD2d 159, cert denied 522 US 967; Mataxas v North Shore Univ. Hosp., supra; Kirkman v Astoria Gen. Hosp., supra). Bracken, J. P., Thompson, Sullivan and Pizzuto, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

252 A.D.2d 565, 675 N.Y.S.2d 297, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8640, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/avent-v-headley-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack