Legal Opinion
Milosevic v. O'Donnell
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Decided November 29, 2011PublishedCited by 6 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
*629The motion court properly dismissed the fourth and fifth causes of action as against Joost, alleging negligence and “intentional and/or wanton conduct” respectively. The causes of action fail to state a claim under the theory of respondeat superior. Pursuant to that doctrine, an employer will not be vicariously liable for its employee’s alleged assault “where the assault was not within the scope of the employee’s duties, and there is no evidence that the assault was condoned, instigated or authorized by the employer” (Yeboah v Snapple, Inc., 286 AD2d 204, 204-205 [2001]). Here, there is no…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- D'Amico v. ChristieNew York Court of Appeals · 1987
- Yeboah v. Snapple, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2001
- Velasquez-Spillers v. Infinity Broadcasting Corp.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2008
- Silverstein v. Westminster House Owners, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2008
3Cited by6 opinions
- Doe v. AlsaudDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 2014
- Rosenfeld v. LenichDistrict Court, E.D. New York · 2019
- Vicuna v. Empire Today, LLC (a Northlake, Illinois-based company)Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2015
- Green v. Fasyal Kabir Mohammad HimonAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2017
- Bulka v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2020
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.