Curtis v. City of Utica

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Curtis v. City of Utica

209 A.D.2d 1024, 620 N.Y.S.2d 24

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

DecidedNovember 16, 1994

StatusPublished

Cited by14 cases

This text of 209 A.D.2d 1024 (Curtis v. City of Utica) 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

Curtis v. City of Utica, 209 A.D.2d 1024, 620 N.Y.S.2d 24 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order unanimously reversed on the law without costs, motion granted and complaint dismissed. Memorandum: Supreme Court erred in denying defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Assuming, arguendo, that defendant was the employer of the summer camp group leader who assaulted the infant, it may not be held liable for his intentional tort because the record establishes as a matter of law that the acts constituting that tort were wholly personal in nature, outside the scope of the counselor’s employment and not in furtherance of defendant’s business (see, Joshua S. v Casey, 206 AD2d 839; Nicollette T. v Hospital for Joint Diseases/Orthopaedic Inst., 198 AD2d 54, 54-55; Noto v St. Vincent’s Hosp. & Med. Ctr., 160 AD2d 656, 656-657, lv denied 76 NY2d 714; see generally, Riviello v Waldron, 47 NY2d 297, 302-303). Moreover, while an employer may be liable if it hired or retained an employee with knowledge of the employee’s propensity for the sort of behavior that caused a plaintiff harm, there is no evidence in the record that defendant, assuming that it was the group leader’s employer, had such knowledge (see, Kirkman v Astoria Gen. Hosp., 204 AD2d 401; Detone v Bullit Courier Serv., 140 AD2d 278, 279, lv denied 73 NY2d 702). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Oneida County, Shaheen, J.—Summary Judgment.) Present—Pine, J. P., Balio, Lawton, Callahan and Davis, JJ.

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

—Order unanimously reversed on the law without costs, motion granted and complaint dismissed. Memorandum: Supreme Court erred in denying defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Assuming, arguendo, that defendant was the employer of the summer camp group leader who assaulted the infant, it may not be held liable for his intentional tort because the record establishes as a matter of law that the acts constituting that tort were wholly personal in nature, outside the scope of the counselor’s employment and not in furtherance of defendant’s business (see, Joshua S. v Casey, 206 AD2d 839; Nicollette T. v Hospital for Joint Diseases/Orthopaedic Inst., 198 AD2d 54, 54-55; Noto v St. Vincent’s Hosp. & Med. Ctr., 160 AD2d 656, 656-657, lv denied 76 NY2d 714; see generally, Riviello v Waldron, 47 NY2d 297, 302-303). Moreover, while an employer may be liable if it hired or retained an employee with knowledge of the employee’s propensity for the sort of behavior that caused a plaintiff harm, there is no evidence in the record that defendant, assuming that it was the group leader’s employer, had such knowledge (see, Kirkman v Astoria Gen. Hosp., 204 AD2d 401; Detone v Bullit Courier Serv., 140 AD2d 278, 279, lv denied 73 NY2d 702). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Oneida County, Shaheen, J.—Summary Judgment.) Present—Pine, J. P., Balio, Lawton, Callahan and Davis, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

209 A.D.2d 1024, 620 N.Y.S.2d 24, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/curtis-v-city-of-utica-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack