Baes v. County of Niagara

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Baes v. County of Niagara

19 A.D.3d 1091, 796 N.Y.S.2d 271, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6272

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

DecidedJune 10, 2005

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 19 A.D.3d 1091 (Baes v. County of Niagara) 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

Baes v. County of Niagara, 19 A.D.3d 1091, 796 N.Y.S.2d 271, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6272 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Niagara County (Amy J. Fricano, J.), entered May 12, 2004. The order denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.

[1092]*1092Memorandum: Plaintiff commenced this action seeking damages for injuries allegedly sustained by his daughter while riding in a “gator,” i.e., a motorized vehicle similar to a golf cart, owned by defendant and driven by defendant’s employee. Supreme Court properly denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. “The doctrine of respondeat superior renders an employer vicariously liable for torts committed by an employee acting within the scope of the employment . . . , so long as the tortious conduct is generally foreseeable and a natural incident of the employment” (Judith M. v Sisters of Charity Hosp., 93 NY2d 932, 933 [1999]). Here, defendant failed to meet its burden of establishing as a matter of law that the alleged tortious conduct of its employee was not generally foreseeable and a natural incident of the employment (see id.). Present—Pigott, Jr., EJ., Green, Gorski, Martoche and Smith, JJ.

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

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Niagara County (Amy J. Fricano, J.), entered May 12, 2004. The order denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.

[1092]*1092Memorandum: Plaintiff commenced this action seeking damages for injuries allegedly sustained by his daughter while riding in a “gator,” i.e., a motorized vehicle similar to a golf cart, owned by defendant and driven by defendant’s employee. Supreme Court properly denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. “The doctrine of respondeat superior renders an employer vicariously liable for torts committed by an employee acting within the scope of the employment . . . , so long as the tortious conduct is generally foreseeable and a natural incident of the employment” (Judith M. v Sisters of Charity Hosp., 93 NY2d 932, 933 [1999]). Here, defendant failed to meet its burden of establishing as a matter of law that the alleged tortious conduct of its employee was not generally foreseeable and a natural incident of the employment (see id.). Present—Pigott, Jr., EJ., Green, Gorski, Martoche and Smith, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

19 A.D.3d 1091, 796 N.Y.S.2d 271, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6272, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/baes-v-county-of-niagara-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack