Perez v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Perez v. City of New York

298 A.D.2d 265, 748 N.Y.S.2d 382, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10039

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

DecidedOctober 22, 2002

StatusPublished

This text of 298 A.D.2d 265 (Perez v. City of New York) 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

Perez v. City of New York, 298 A.D.2d 265, 748 N.Y.S.2d 382, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10039 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Marcy Friedman, J.), entered January 4, 2001, which, inter alia, denied defendant City of New York’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against it, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The evidence indicating that defendant police officer Speringo, although off duty, was attempting to make an arrest at the time his service revolver discharged killing plaintiff’s decedent, an innocent bystander, was sufficient to raise a triable issue as to whether the shooting occurred in the course of Speringo’s employment and, accordingly, as to whether defendant City is answerable for Speringo’s conduct on a respondeat superior theory (see Riviello v Waldron, 47 NY2d 297, 302-303). In addition, given, inter alia, the substantiated complaints predating the shooting of plaintiff’s decedent lodged against Speringo with the Civilian Complaint Review Board, there exist triable issues as to whether the City negligently trained Speringo and/or retained him in its employ (see T.W. v City of New York, 286 AD2d 243). Concur — Tom, J.P., Ellerin, Lerner, Rubin and Gonzalez, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Marcy Friedman, J.), entered January 4, 2001, which, inter alia, denied defendant City of New York’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against it, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The evidence indicating that defendant police officer Speringo, although off duty, was attempting to make an arrest at the time his service revolver discharged killing plaintiff’s decedent, an innocent bystander, was sufficient to raise a triable issue as to whether the shooting occurred in the course of Speringo’s employment and, accordingly, as to whether defendant City is answerable for Speringo’s conduct on a respondeat superior theory (see Riviello v Waldron, 47 NY2d 297, 302-303). In addition, given, inter alia, the substantiated complaints predating the shooting of plaintiff’s decedent lodged against Speringo with the Civilian Complaint Review Board, there exist triable issues as to whether the City negligently trained Speringo and/or retained him in its employ (see T.W. v City of New York, 286 AD2d 243). Concur — Tom, J.P., Ellerin, Lerner, Rubin and Gonzalez, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

298 A.D.2d 265, 748 N.Y.S.2d 382, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10039, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/perez-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack