Start v. Sugarcreek Stores

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Start v. Sugarcreek Stores

234 A.D.2d 933, 652 N.Y.S.2d 193, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13657

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

DecidedDecember 30, 1996

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 234 A.D.2d 933 (Start v. Sugarcreek Stores) 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

Start v. Sugarcreek Stores, 234 A.D.2d 933, 652 N.Y.S.2d 193, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13657 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

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. Plaintiff Kathleen Start was injured in an unprovoked attack by defendant’s employee. Although an employer may be liable when it hires or retains an employee with knowledge of his propensity for the type of behavior that caused plaintiff’s injuries, defendant submitted proof in admissible form establishing that it had no such knowledge, and the evidence submitted by plaintiff is insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact (see, Farrell v McIntosh, 221 AD2d 312, 313-314, lv denied 87 NY2d 809; Curtis v City of Utica, 209 AD2d 1024, 1025; Kirkman v Astoria Gen. Hosp., 204 AD2d 401, 403, lv denied 84 NY2d 811, rearg denied 85 NY2d 858). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Bergin, J.—Summary Judgment.) Present—Denman, P. J., Green, Doerr and Boehm, 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. Plaintiff Kathleen Start was injured in an unprovoked attack by defendant’s employee. Although an employer may be liable when it hires or retains an employee with knowledge of his propensity for the type of behavior that caused plaintiff’s injuries, defendant submitted proof in admissible form establishing that it had no such knowledge, and the evidence submitted by plaintiff is insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact (see, Farrell v McIntosh, 221 AD2d 312, 313-314, lv denied 87 NY2d 809; Curtis v City of Utica, 209 AD2d 1024, 1025; Kirkman v Astoria Gen. Hosp., 204 AD2d 401, 403, lv denied 84 NY2d 811, rearg denied 85 NY2d 858). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Bergin, J.—Summary Judgment.) Present—Denman, P. J., Green, Doerr and Boehm, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

234 A.D.2d 933, 652 N.Y.S.2d 193, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13657, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/start-v-sugarcreek-stores-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack