respondeat superior renders a master vicariously doctrine in New York

15 New York opinions name it 2 courts 1979–2022 3 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by New York courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.

Followed or applied (10)

Case	Followed	Cited
Riviello v. Waldrongreen ny · 1979 · cited in 7 New York opinions naming this issue, 1985–2021 2 sentences 2021The plaintiff appeals. "[T]he doctrine of respondeat superior renders a master vicariously liable for a tort committed by his servant while acting within the scope of his employment" ( Riviello v Waldron , 47 NY2d 297, 302 ). 2010“The doctrine of respondeat superior renders a master vicariously liable for a tort committed by his servant while acting within the scope of employment” (Quadrozzi v Norcem, Inc., 125 AD2d 559, 561 [1986]; see Riviello v Waldron, 47 NY2d 297, 302 [1979]; O’Boyle v Avis Rent-A-Car Sys., 78 AD2d 431 [1981]).	4	7
Rivera v. Fenix Car Service Corp.green nyappdiv · 2011 · cited in 5 New York opinions naming this issue, 2017–2022 2 sentences 2022Corp. , 81 AD3d 622, 623 ; see Camisa v Rosen , 150 AD3d 809, 810 ). "'An employee's actions fall within the scope of employment where [2]the purpose in performing such actions is to further the employer's interest, or to carry out duties incumbent upon the employee in furthering the employer's business'" ( Scott v Lopez , 136 AD3d 885, 886 , quoting Beauchamp v City of New York , 3 AD3d 465, 466 ; see Camisa v Rosen , 150 AD3d at 810 ). 2021*Corp. , 81 AD3d 622, 623 ; see Camisa v Rosen , 150 AD3d 809, 810 ; Meehan v County of Suffolk , 144 AD3d 640, 641 ).	3	5
Quadrozzi v. Norcem, Inc.green nyappdiv · 1986 · cited in 4 New York opinions naming this issue, 1991–2010 2 sentences 2010“The doctrine of respondeat superior renders a master vicariously liable for a tort committed by his servant while acting within the scope of employment” (Quadrozzi v Norcem, Inc., 125 AD2d 559, 561 [1986]; see Riviello v Waldron, 47 NY2d 297, 302 [1979]; O’Boyle v Avis Rent-A-Car Sys., 78 AD2d 431 [1981]). 2009“The doctrine of respondeat superior renders a master vicariously liable for a tort committed by his [or her] servant while acting within the scope of employment” (Quadrozzi v Norcem, Inc., 125 AD2d 559, 561 [1986]; see Riviello v Waldron, 47 NY2d 297, 302 [1979]; Mott v Consumers’ Ice Co., 73 NY 543, 546-547 [1878]; Savarese v City of N.Y.	3	4
Meehan v. County of Suffolkgreen nyappdiv · 2016 · cited in 5 New York opinions naming this issue, 2017–2022 2 sentences 2022DP appeals. "'The doctrine of respondeat superior renders a master vicariously liable for a tort committed by his [or her] servant within the scope of employment'" ( Meehan v County of Suffolk , 144 AD3d 640, 641 , quoting Rivera v Fenix Car Serv. 2017“The doctrine of respondeat superior renders a master vicariously liable for a tort committed by his [or her] servant within the scope of employment” (Meehan v County of Suffolk, 144 AD3d 640, 641 [2016]; see Scott v Lopez, 136 AD3d 885, 886 [2016]; Rivera v Fenix Car Serv.	2	5
Scott v. Lopezgreen nyappdiv · 2016 · cited in 2 New York opinions naming this issue, 2017–2022 2 sentences 2022Corp. , 81 AD3d 622, 623 ; see Camisa v Rosen , 150 AD3d 809, 810 ). "'An employee's actions fall within the scope of employment where [2]the purpose in performing such actions is to further the employer's interest, or to carry out duties incumbent upon the employee in furthering the employer's business'" ( Scott v Lopez , 136 AD3d 885, 886 , quoting Beauchamp v City of New York , 3 AD3d 465, 466 ; see Camisa v Rosen , 150 AD3d at 810 ). 2017*“The doctrine of respondeat superior renders a master vicariously liable for a tort committed by his [or her] servant within the scope of employment” (Meehan v County of Suffolk, 144 AD3d 640, 641 [2016]; see Scott v Lopez, 136 AD3d 885, 886 [2016]; Rivera v Fenix Car Serv.	2	2
Camisa v. Rosengreen nyappdiv · 2017 · cited in 2 New York opinions naming this issue, 2021–2022 2 sentences 2022Corp. , 81 AD3d 622, 623 ; see Camisa v Rosen , 150 AD3d 809, 810 ). "'An employee's actions fall within the scope of employment where [2]the purpose in performing such actions is to further the employer's interest, or to carry out duties incumbent upon the employee in furthering the employer's business'" ( Scott v Lopez , 136 AD3d 885, 886 , quoting Beauchamp v City of New York , 3 AD3d 465, 466 ; see Camisa v Rosen , 150 AD3d at 810 ). 2022Corp. , 81 AD3d 622, 623 ; see Camisa v Rosen , 150 AD3d 809, 810 ). "'An employee's actions fall within the scope of employment where [2]the purpose in performing such actions is to further the employer's interest, or to carry out duties incumbent upon the employee in furthering the employer's business'" ( Scott v Lopez , 136 AD3d 885, 886 , quoting Beauchamp v City of New York , 3 AD3d 465, 466 ; see Camisa v Rosen , 150 AD3d at 810 ).	2	2
Mott v. . Consumers' Ice Companygreen · 1878 · cited in 2 New York opinions naming this issue, 1979–2009 2 sentences 2009“The doctrine of respondeat superior renders a master vicariously liable for a tort committed by his [or her] servant while acting within the scope of employment” (Quadrozzi v Norcem, Inc., 125 AD2d 559, 561 [1986]; see Riviello v Waldron, 47 NY2d 297, 302 [1979]; Mott v Consumers’ Ice Co., 73 NY 543, 546-547 [1878]; Savarese v City of N.Y. 1979Applying the pertinent legal precepts to this factual framework, we first note what is hornbook law: the doctrine of respondeat superior renders a master vicariously liable for a tort committed by his servant while acting within the scope of his employment (Mott v Consumers’ Ice Co., 73 NY 543 ; 2 Mechem, Agency [2d ed], § 1874).	1	2
Beauchamp v. City of New Yorkgreen nyappdiv · 2004 · cited in 1 New York opinions naming this issue, 2022–2022 1 sentence 2022Corp. , 81 AD3d 622, 623 ; see Camisa v Rosen , 150 AD3d 809, 810 ). "'An employee's actions fall within the scope of employment where [*2]the purpose in performing such actions is to further the employer's interest, or to carry out duties incumbent upon the employee in furthering the employer's business'" ( Scott v Lopez , 136 AD3d 885, 886 , quoting Beauchamp v City of New York , 3 AD3d 465, 466 ; see Camisa v Rosen , 150 AD3d at 810 ).	1	1
Judith M. v. Sisters of Charity Hospitalgreen ny · 1999 · cited in 1 New York opinions naming this issue, 2017–2017 1 sentence 2017Corp., 81 AD3d 622, 623 [2011]). “ ‘Pursuant to this doctrine, the employer may be liable when the employee acts negligently or intentionally, so long as the tortious conduct is generally foreseeable and a natural incident of the employment’ ” (Scott v Lopez, 136 AD3d at 886 , quoting Judith M. v Sisters of Charity Hosp., 93 NY2d 932, 933 [1999]).	1	1
Holmes v. Gary Goldberg & Co.green nyappdiv · 2007 · cited in 1 New York opinions naming this issue, 2017–2017 1 sentence 2017Corp., 81 AD3d 622, 623 [2011]). “ ‘An act is considered to be within the scope of employment if it is performed while the employee is engaged generally in the business of his [or her] employer, or if his [or her] act may be reasonably said to be necessary or incidental to such employment’ ” (Ammirati v Arias, 111 AD3d 771 , 772 [2013], quoting Holmes v Gary Goldberg & Co., Inc., 40 AD3d 1033, 1034 [2007]).	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

Case	Negative	Cited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in New York. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (8)

Case	Cited	Years
Schiffer v. Sunrise Removal, Inc. green nyappdiv · 2009 2 sentences 2011Conversely, the general rule is that an employer who hires an independent contractor is not liable for the independent contractor’s negligent acts (see Chuchuca v Chuchuca, 67 AD3d 948 [2009]; Schiffer v Sunrise Removal, Inc., 62 AD3d 776 [2009]). 2009“The doctrine of respondeat superior renders a master vicariously liable for a tort committed by his servant while acting within the scope of employment” (Quadrozzi v Norcem, Inc., 125 AD2d 559, 561 [1986]; see Riviello v Waldron, 47 NY2d 297, 302 [1979]; Schiffer v Sunrise Removal, Inc., 62 AD3d 776 [2009]).	2	2009–2011
Argento v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. green nyappdiv · 2009 1 sentence 2018Under these circumstances, the court providently exercised its discretion in granting MetLife leave to renew its motion to dismiss ( see Candlewood Holdings, Inc. v Valle , 134 AD3d 872, 874 ; Argento v Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. , 66 AD3d 930, 933 ). " The doctrine of respondeat superior renders a master vicariously liable for a tort committed by his [or her] servant within the scope of employment.	1	2018–2018
Candlewood Holdings, Inc. v. Valle green nyappdiv · 2015 1 sentence 2018Under these circumstances, the court providently exercised its discretion in granting MetLife leave to renew its motion to dismiss ( see Candlewood Holdings, Inc. v Valle , 134 AD3d 872, 874 ; Argento v Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. , 66 AD3d 930, 933 ). " The doctrine of respondeat superior renders a master vicariously liable for a tort committed by his [or her] servant within the scope of employment.	1	2018–2018
Ammirati v. Arias green nyappdiv · 2013 1 sentence 2017Corp., 81 AD3d 622, 623 [2011]). “ ‘An act is considered to be within the scope of employment if it is performed while the employee is engaged generally in the business of his [or her] employer, or if his [or her] act may be reasonably said to be necessary or incidental to such employment’ ” (Ammirati v Arias, 111 AD3d 771 , 772 [2013], quoting Holmes v Gary Goldberg & Co., Inc., 40 AD3d 1033, 1034 [2007]).	1	2017–2017
Chuchuca v. Chuchuca green nyappdiv · 2009 1 sentence 2011Conversely, the general rule is that an employer who hires an independent contractor is not liable for the independent contractor’s negligent acts (see Chuchuca v Chuchuca, 67 AD3d 948 [2009]; Schiffer v Sunrise Removal, Inc., 62 AD3d 776 [2009]).	1	2011–2011
O'Boyle v. Avis Rent-A-Car System, Inc. green nyappdiv · 1981 1 sentence 2010“The doctrine of respondeat superior renders a master vicariously liable for a tort committed by his servant while acting within the scope of employment” (Quadrozzi v Norcem, Inc., 125 AD2d 559, 561 [1986]; see Riviello v Waldron, 47 NY2d 297, 302 [1979]; O’Boyle v Avis Rent-A-Car Sys., 78 AD2d 431 [1981]).	1	2010–2010
Jones v. Weigand green nyappdiv · 1909 1 sentence 1985(Riviello v Waldron, 47 NY2d, at p 302 , quoting from Jones v Weigand, 134 App Div 644, 645 .) The claimant’s brother was off duty and at his mother’s home when he was cleaning his personal revolver, which was not owned or issued by the State Department of Correction, and which the Department did not require that Mr. Arriaga carry.	1	1985–1985
Lundberg v. State of New York green ny · 1969 1 sentence 1985It is hornbook law that “the doctrine of respondeat superior renders a master vicariously liable for a tort committed by his servant while acting within the scope of his employment [citations omitted].” (Riviello v Waldron, 47 NY2d 297, 302 .) A servant acts within the scope of his employment “when he is doing something in furtherance of the duties he owes to his employer and where the employer is, or could be, exercising some control, directly or indirectly, over the employee’s activities [citations omitted].” (Lundberg v State of New York, 25 NY2d 467, 470 .) As long as the employee is perfo	1	1985–1985

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check