Nouel v. 325 Wadsworth Realty LLC, 112 A.D.3d 493 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013). · Go Syfert
Search
Nouel v. 325 Wadsworth Realty LLC, 112 A.D.3d 493 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
20 citation events (20 in the last 25 years) across 5 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: D.R. v. City of New York (nyappdiv, 2025-10-28)
Treatment trajectory · 2014 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2014 2020 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 8 distinct citers. How cited ↗
examined Cited as authority (rule) D.R. v. City of New York (3×)
N.Y. App. Div. · 2025 · confidence medium
Supreme Court should have dismissed the cause of action for premises liability on the ground that it is duplicative of the cause of action for negligent hiring, retention, supervision, and/or direction (NHRSD) ( see Nouel v 325 Wadsworth Realty LLC , 112 AD3d 493, 494 [1st Dept 2013], lv denied 23 NY3d 904 [2014]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Fields v. General Conference of the United Methodist Church
N.Y. App. Div. · 2025 · confidence medium
Similarly, plaintiff's cause of action for premises liability is duplicative of his cause of action for negligent hiring, retention, supervision, or direction, and should have been dismissed for that reason ( see Nouel v 325 Wadsworth Realty LLC , 112 AD3d 493, 494 [1st Dept 2013], lv denied 23 NY3d 904 [2014]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Tara N.P. v. Western Suffolk Board of Cooperative Educational Services
N.Y. App. Div. · 2015 · confidence medium
Here, the appellants established, prima facie, their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them on the ground of governmental immunity by demonstrating that they did not voluntarily assume a special duty to the plaintiff (see McLean v City of New York, 12 NY3d at 201 ; Pelaez v Seide, 2 NY3d at 199-200; Lauer v City of New York, 95 NY2d 95, 100-101 [2000]; Cuffy v City of New York, 69 NY2d at 260 ; see also Miller v State of New York, 62 NY2d 506, 513 [1984]; Nouel v 325 Wadsworth Realty LLC, 112 AD3d 493, 494 [2013]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Tara N.P. v. Western Suffolk Board of Cooperative Educational Services
N.Y. App. Div. · 2014 · confidence medium
Here, the appellants established, prima facie, their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the complaint *1326 insofar as asserted against them on the ground of governmental immunity by demonstrating that they did not voluntarily assume a special duty to the plaintiff (see McLean v City of New York, 12 NY3d at 201 ; Pelaez v Seide, 2 NY3d at 199-200 ; Lauer v City of New York, 95 NY2d 95, 100-101 [2000]; Cuffy v City of New York, 69 NY2d at 260 ; see also Miller v State of New York, 62 NY2d 506, 513 [1984]; Nouel v 325 Wadsworth Realty LLC, 112 AD3d 493, 494 [2013]).
discussed Cited "see" Coronado v. 3479 Associates LLC
N.Y. App. Div. · 2015 · signal: see · confidence high
Plaintiffs prior complaints that Jovel had used hostile language in aggressively rebuffing plaintiffs request to fix the heating did not establish that defendant knew or should have known of Jovel’s “propensity for the sort of conduct which caused the injury” (Sheila C. v Povich, 11 AD3d 120, 130 [1st Dept 2004]; see Nouel v 325 Wadsworth Realty LLC, 112 AD3d 493 [1st Dept 2013], lv denied 23 NY3d 904 [2014]).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." SCVAWCR-Doe v. Archdiocese of N.Y. (2×)
N.Y. Sup. Ct., Westchester Cty. · 2024 · signal: see also · confidence low
Footnote 10: See also, Nouel v. 325 Wadsworth Realty LLC ( 112 AD3d 493 [1st Dept. 2013], leave to appeal denied 23 NY3d 904 [June 5, 2014]), discussed infra , where the court held, as to the theory of sexual assault based on premises liability by landlord's employee, that given defendants' lack of notice, plaintiffs' premises liability negligence claim was properly dismissed, and further, that "although couched as a premises liability claim, [it] is merely duplicative of the negligent hiring, retention, and supervision claims. ( Nouel v. 325 Wadsworth Realty LLC, supra , 112 AD3d at 494.)
cited Cited "see, e.g." Moskowitz v. Masliansky
N.Y. App. Div. · 2021 · signal: see also · confidence low
Co. v McCabe & Mack, LLP , 105 AD3d 837 , 839; Mecca v Shang , 258 AD2d 569 , 570; see also Nouel v 325 Wadsworth Realty LLC , 112 AD3d 493, 494 ).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." PC-41 DOE v. Poly Prep Country Day School
E.D.N.Y · 2021 · signal: see also · confidence medium
In so doing, the court noted that it was “apparent from the . . . complaint” that plaintiff’s premises liability claim was “simply a repackaging of the plaintiff’s claim of alleged failure to supervise,” as the “the premises liability [was] based upon the defendants’ alleged failure to know that [the priest] represented an unreasonable risk to the plaintiff, and that [the priest’s] propensity for sexual misconduct made the premises unsafe.” Id.; see also Nouel v. 325 Wadsworth Realty LLC, 112 A.D.3d 493, 494 (1st Dep’t 2013) (concluding that claim “couched as a premises…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Camila Nouel
v.
325 Wadsworth Realty LLC
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Dec 12, 2013.
112 A.D.3d 493
Cited by 5 opinions  |  Published

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Paul Wooten, J.), entered October 2, 2012, which, insofar as appealed from, granted the motion of defendants 325 Wadsworth Realty LLC (325) and Solar Realty Management Corp. (Solar) for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims as against them, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Dismissal of the negligent hiring, retention, and supervision[*494] claims was proper in this action for injuries sustained as a result of defendant Jose Rivera’s sexual assault upon the infant plaintiff. Rivera was the porter for the building owned by 325 and managed by Solar, and was hired based upon a recommendation made by the building’s former superintendent. Plaintiffs’ reliance upon the fact that Rivera was a registered sex offender is unavailing, since “[a]n employer is under no duty to inquire as to whether an employee has been convicted of crimes in the past” (Yeboah v Snapple, Inc., 286 AD2d 204, 205 [1st Dept 2001]), and the record is devoid of an indication that defendants had knowledge of Rivera’s propensity for such conduct (see Detone v Bullit Courier Serv., 140 AD2d 278 [1st Dept 1988], lv denied 73 NY2d 702 [1988]).

Contrary to plaintiffs’ contention, constructive notice that Rivera harbored dangerous sexual proclivities may not be imputed upon 325 and Solar on the basis that Rivera had set up a playroom in the building’s basement, particularly since Rivera worked in the building and had young children of his own (see Ostroy v Six Sq. LLC, 100 AD3d 493, 494 [1st Dept 2012]). Nor is plaintiffs’ reliance upon Rivera’s termination from his former employer availing, because even if 325 and Solar knew that Rivera was fired for insubordination based upon his reckless driving, this does not constitute notice of his tendency for sexual assault (see McCann v Varrick Group LLC, 84 AD3d 591 [1st Dept 2011]).

Given defendants’ lack of notice, plaintiffs’ negligence claim was also properly dismissed insofar as it was based upon premises liability. Furthermore, this claim, although couched as a premises liability claim, is merely duplicative of the negligent hiring, retention, and supervision claims (see generally Vermont Mut. Ins. Co. v McCabe & Mack, LLP, 105 AD3d 837, 838-839 [2d Dept 2013]).

We have considered plaintiffs’ remaining contentions and find them unavailing. Concur — Mazzarelli, J.E, Sweeny, DeGrasse, Manzanet-Daniels and Feinman, JJ. [Prior Case History: 2012 NY Slip Op 32506(U).]