Wallace v. Gomez, 296 A.D.2d 306 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002). · Go Syfert
Wallace v. Gomez, 296 A.D.2d 306 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
1 citation event across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: Gregory v. National Amusements, Inc. (nyappdiv, 2020-01-09)
Top citers, strongest first. 1 distinct citer. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Gregory v. National Amusements, Inc.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2020 · confidence medium
Under plaintiff's version of events, SEB could not be held liable because SEB's employee's unprovoked assault on Gregory with a box cutter was not within the scope of any duties he may have had as a security guard and was not done in furtherance of SEB's business interests ( see Wallace v Gomez , 296 AD2d 306, 307 [1st Dept 2002]; cf. Fauntleroy v EMM Group Holdings LLC , 133 AD3d 452 [1st Dept 2015] [reinstating claims based on respondeat superior where the record showed that a bouncer hired to maintain order was acting within the scope of his employment when he punched the plaintiff]) .
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Bruce Wallace
v.
Ramon Gomez, Also Known as Ramon Gomez, Jr., and 2962 Decatur Avenue Owners Corp.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Jul 2, 2002.
296 A.D.2d 306
2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7130
Cited by 1 opinion  |  Published

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Howard Silver, J.), entered October 25, 2001, which denied defendant 2962 Decatur Avenue Owners Corp.’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against it, unanimously modified, on the law, to grant the motion to the extent of dismissing plaintiff’s claim against 2962 Decatur Avenue Owners Corp. insofar as premised on the doctrine of respondeat superior, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

In this personal injury action, the motion court properly determined that there were triable issues of fact as to whether defendant Ramon Gomez, Jr. was an employee of Decatur at the time he assaulted the plaintiff and, if he was, whether Dec[*307] atur was negligent in its hiring and supervision of him. However, the motion court erred when it found questions of fact as to whether Decatur was answerable for Mr. Gomez’ actions on a respondeat superior theory. Decatur cannot be held vicariously liable for the unprovoked assault at issue, which, as alleged, was clearly outside the scope of any duties Mr. Gomez may have had as a building functionary and did not further or serve any discernible business purpose of Decatur (see, Fainberg v Dalton Kent Sec. Group, 268 AD2d 247, 248; Flowers v New York City Tr. Auth., 267 AD2d 132, lv denied 94 NY2d 763). Concur — Saxe, J.P., Buckley, Rosenberger, Friedman and Marlow, JJ.