Nicollette T. v. Hospital for Joint Diseases/Orthopaedic Institute

198 A.D.2d 54, 603 N.Y.S.2d 146
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedNovember 9, 1993
StatusPublished
Cited by20 cases

This text of 198 A.D.2d 54 (Nicollette T. v. Hospital for Joint Diseases/Orthopaedic Institute) 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
Nicollette T. v. Hospital for Joint Diseases/Orthopaedic Institute, 198 A.D.2d 54, 603 N.Y.S.2d 146 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Helen Freedman, J.), entered on or about April 7, 1993, which granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint without prejudice to repleading claims for negligent hiring and for improper supervision, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

While questions of whether an employee’s actions fall within the scope of his employment are ordinarily questions of fact for a jury, where there are no disputed facts and there is no question that the employee’s acts fall outside the scope of his employment, as here, the determination becomes one of law for the court and not one of fact for the jury (see, e.g., Horowitz v Sears, Roebuck & Co., 137 AD2d 492, lv denied 72 NY2d 803; see generally, Riviello v Waldron, 47 NY2d 297, 302-303). Moreover, the mere fact that an employee’s actions, which are the subject of inquiry, occurred during the time of his employment, does not conclusively demonstrate that said [55]*55actions were within the scope of his employment or that he was performing said acts in the furtherance of his employer’s business (see, Heindel v Bowery Sav. Bank, 138 AD2d 787; Stavitz v City of New York, 98 AD2d 529, 531). Clearly, the actions complained of, as a matter of law, were wholly personal in nature, outside the scope of his employment, and not in furtherance of defendant hospital’s business (Cornell v State of New York, 46 NY2d 1032). Accordingly, the complaint seeking to impose liability upon defendant hospital pursuant to the doctrine of respondeat superior was properly dismissed. Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Wallach, Kupferman, Asch and Kassal, JJ.

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

Related

Lovett v. 2600 Seventh Ave. Realty, LLC
2025 NY Slip Op 05922 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2025)
Maloney v. Rodriguez
2017 NY Slip Op 8993 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)
IDX Capital, LLC v. Phoenix Partners Group LLC
83 A.D.3d 569 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
R. v. R.
37 A.D.3d 577 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)
Cherry v. Utica Dialysis Ctr.
2003 NY Slip Op 51525(U) (New York Supreme Court, Kings County, 2003)
Schilt v. New York City Transit Authority
304 A.D.2d 189 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2003)
Wait v. Beck's North America, Inc.
241 F. Supp. 2d 172 (N.D. New York, 2003)
Demas v. Levitsky
291 A.D.2d 653 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)
N. X. v. Cabrini Medical Center
280 A.D.2d 34 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001)
Murray v. Research Foundation of the State University
184 Misc. 2d 453 (New York Supreme Court, 2000)
Fainberg v. Dalton Kent Securities Group, Inc.
268 A.D.2d 247 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)
Melo v. Jewish Board of Family & Children's Services, Inc.
183 Misc. 2d 776 (New York Supreme Court, 1999)
McGhee v. New York Times, Inc.
261 A.D.2d 320 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1999)
Curtis v. County of Oneida
248 A.D.2d 999 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1998)
Forester v. State
169 Misc. 2d 531 (New York State Court of Claims, 1996)
Curtis v. City of Utica
209 A.D.2d 1024 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1994)
Kirkman v. Astoria General Hospital
204 A.D.2d 401 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1994)
Mary KK. v. Jack LL.
203 A.D.2d 840 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1994)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
198 A.D.2d 54, 603 N.Y.S.2d 146, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nicollette-t-v-hospital-for-joint-diseasesorthopaedic-institute-nyappdiv-1993.