respondeat superior doctrine in New York

2026"Under the common-law doctrine of respondeat superior, an employer—including the State—may be held vicariously liable for torts, including intentional torts, committed by employees acting within the scope of their employment" ( Rivera v State of New York , 34 NY3d 383 , 389; see Wood v State of New York , 119 AD3d 672, 672 ), provided that the tortious conduct is "'generally foreseeable and a natural incident of the employment'" ( Rivera v State of New York , 34 NY3d at 389, quoting Judith M. v Sisters of Charity Hosp. , 93 NY2d 932, 933 ; see Riviello v Waldron , 47 NY2d 297, 304 ).

2025Ctr ., 97 NY2d 247 [2002], supra ), those acts which the employer could reasonably have foreseen are within the scope of the employment and thus give rise to liability under the doctrine of respondeat superior " ( see Holmes v Gary Goldberg & Co., Inc ., 40 AD3d 1033 [2d Dept 2007] citing Riviello v Waldron , 47 NY2d 297 [1979]). "[T]he employer may still be held liable under theories of negligent hiring, retention, and supervision of the employee" ( see Johansmeyer v New York City Dept. of Educ ., 165 AD3d 634 [2d Dept 2018] citing Chichester v Wallace , 150 AD3d 1073 [2d Dept 2017]; Kenneth

2026Moreover, in light of our determination, we also conclude with respect to plaintiff's claims against UEM based on the doctrine of respondeat superior ( see Judith M. v Sisters of Charity Hosp. , 93 NY2d 932, 933 [1999]), that the court properly denied the motion insofar as it sought to dismiss the claims against UEM, inasmuch as it is undisputed that Klimek was employed by UEM .

2026"Under the common-law doctrine of respondeat superior, an employer—including the State—may be held vicariously liable for torts, including intentional torts, committed by employees acting within the scope of their employment" ( Rivera v State of New York , 34 NY3d 383 , 389; see Wood v State of New York , 119 AD3d 672, 672 ), provided that the tortious conduct is "'generally foreseeable and a natural incident of the employment'" ( Rivera v State of New York , 34 NY3d at 389, quoting Judith M. v Sisters of Charity Hosp. , 93 NY2d 932, 933 ; see Riviello v Waldron , 47 NY2d 297, 304 ).

2025Ctr ., 97 NY2d 247 [2002], supra ), those acts which the employer could reasonably have foreseen are within the scope of the employment and thus give rise to liability under the doctrine of respondeat superior " ( see Holmes v Gary Goldberg & Co., Inc ., 40 AD3d 1033 [2d Dept 2007] citing Riviello v Waldron , 47 NY2d 297 [1979]). "[T]he employer may still be held liable under theories of negligent hiring, retention, and supervision of the employee" ( see Johansmeyer v New York City Dept. of Educ ., 165 AD3d 634 [2d Dept 2018] citing Chichester v Wallace , 150 AD3d 1073 [2d Dept 2017]; Kenneth

2025Ctr. , 97 NY2d 247, 251 [2002] [An employee's sexual abuse is not in furtherance of employer's business and "is a clear departure from the scope of employment, having been committed for wholly personal motives"].) Therefore where, as here, there is no question that the conduct alleged was outside of the scope of Mr. Isoh's employment, defendants will not be liable under the common law doctrine of respondeat superior.

2017"Under the doctrine of respondeat superior, an employer will be liable for the negligence of an employee committed while the employee is acting in the scope of his employment" ( Lundberg v. State of New York, 25 N.Y.2d 467 , 470, 306 N.Y.S.2d 947 , 255 N.E.2d 177 [1969] ).

2017"Under the doctrine of respondeat superior, an employer will be liable for the negligence of an employee committed while the employee is acting in the scope of his employment" ( Lundberg v. State of New York, 25 N.Y.2d 467 , 470, 306 N.Y.S.2d 947 , 255 N.E.2d 177 [1969] ).

2015“Under the doctrine of respondeat superior, an employer can be held vicariously liable for the torts committed by an employee acting within the scope of the employment” (Fernandez v Rustic Inn, Inc., 60 AD3d 893, 896 [2009]; see Riviello v Waldron, 47 NY2d 297, 302 [1979]; Wood v State of New York, 119 AD3d 672, 672 [2014]).

2015“Pursuant to the doctrine of respondeat superior, an employer can be held vicariously liable for torts committed by an employee acting within the scope of employment” (Horvath v L & B Gardens, Inc., 89 AD3d 803, 803 [2011]; see Fernandez v Rustic Inn, Inc., 60 AD3d 893, 896 [2009]).

2025Accordingly, the Supreme Court correctly granted that branch of the motion of Lutheran and Zwerling which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against Zwerling. "'In general, under the doctrine of respondeat superior, a hospital may be held vicariously liable for the negligence or malpractice of its employees acting within the scope of employment, but not for negligent treatment provided by an independent physician, as when the physician is retained by the patient himself [or herself]'" ( Fuessel v Chin , 179 AD3d 899, 901 , quoting Seiden v Sonstein , 127 AD3d

2025The Supreme Court also should have denied that branch of the defendants' cross-motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against NSUH. "'In general, under the doctrine of respondeat superior, a hospital may be held vicariously liable for the negligence or malpractice of its employees acting within the scope of employment'" ( Mitchell v Goncalves , 179 AD3d 787, 788 , quoting Seiden v Sonstein , 127 AD3d 1158, 1160 ).

2025Auth., 17 AD3d 561, 562 [2d Dept 2005]).

2025Auth., 17 AD3d 561, 562 [2d Dept 2005]).

2026Corp., 188 AD3d 948, 949 [2d Dept 2020], quoting Seiden v Sonstein, 127 AD3d 1158, 1160 [2d Dept 2015]; see Hill v St.

2025Corp., 188 AD3d 948 , 949 [2d Dept 2020], quoting Seiden v Sonstein, 127 AD3d 1158, 1160 [2d Dept 2015]; see Hill v St.

2015“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” (Davis v Larhette, 39 AD3d 693, 694 [2007]; see Judith M. v Sisters of Charity Hosp., 93 NY2d 932, 933 [1999]; Pinto v Tenenbaum, 105 AD3d 930, 931 [2013]).

2009Thus, we conclude that the accident occurred while Corby was “engaged generally in the business of [WGI]” (Davis v Larhette, 39 AD3d 693, 694 [2007]) and, because it is unclear on the record before us whether the doctrine of respondeat superior applies (see Makoske, 47 AD2d at 287 ), we conclude that there is an issue of fact whether Corby was acting within the scope of his employment at the time of the accident.

2025"The doctrine of respondeat superior renders an employer vicariously liable for torts committed by an employee acting in furtherance of the employer's business and within the scope of his or her employment" ( Brandford v Singh , 136 AD3d 726, 727 ; see Llorente v Wnorowski , 204 AD3d 656, 657 ). "'An employee's actions fall within the scope of employment where 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'" ( Montalvo v Episcopal Health Servs., Inc. , 172 AD3d 1357 , 1359, q

2015“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” (Davis v Larhette, 39 AD3d 693, 694 [2007]; see Judith M. v Sisters of Charity Hosp., 93 NY2d 932, 933 [1999]; Pinto v Tenenbaum, 105 AD3d 930, 931 [2013]).

2025Such liability attaches for the tortious acts of employees "only if those acts were committed in furtherance of the employer's business and within the scope of employment" (Doe v Guthrie Clinic, Ltd., 22 NY3d 480, 484 [2014] [internal citations omitted]).

2024"Under the doctrine of respondeat superior, an employer may be vicariously liable for the tortious acts of its employees only if those acts were committed in furtherance of the employer's business and within the scope of employment" (Doe v Guthrie Clinic, Ltd, 22 NY3d 480, 484 [2014] [internal quotations and citations omitted]).

2004In the absence of any wrongful or actionable underlying conduct by defendant T, there can be no imposition of vicarious liability against any alleged employer or principal of defendant T. pursuant to the doctrine of respondeat superior (see Karaduman v Newsday, Inc., 51 NY2d 531, 545-546 [1980]; Nichols v Niagara Mohawk Power Corp., 37 AD2d 909 , 910 [1971], affd 33 NY2d 670 [1973]; cf. Richardson v New York Univ., 202 AD2d 295, 297 [1994]; see generally Bing v Thunig, 2 NY2d 656, 666-667 [1957]).

1988Judge Fuld abandoned the "medical act” exception to the respondeat superior doctrine of Schloendorff v New York Hosp. ( 211 NY 125 [1914]), holding in Bing v Thunig (supra, at 667): "[t]he rule of nonliability is out of tune with the life about us, at variance with modern-day needs and with concepts of justice and fair dealing.

2025Ctr ., 97 NY2d 247 [2002], supra ), those acts which the employer could reasonably have foreseen are within the scope of the employment and thus give rise to liability under the doctrine of respondeat superior " ( see Holmes v Gary Goldberg & Co., Inc ., 40 AD3d 1033 [2d Dept 2007] citing Riviello v Waldron , 47 NY2d 297 [1979]). "[T]he employer may still be held liable under theories of negligent hiring, retention, and supervision of the employee" ( see Johansmeyer v New York City Dept. of Educ ., 165 AD3d 634 [2d Dept 2018] citing Chichester v Wallace , 150 AD3d 1073 [2d Dept 2017]; Kenneth

2019"While such vicarious liability does not arise from acts that are committed for the employee's personal motives unrelated to the furtherance of the employer's business, those acts which the employer could reasonably have foreseen are within the scope of the employment and thus give rise to liability under the doctrine of respondeat superior, even where those acts constitute an intentional tort or a crime" ( Holmes v Gary Goldberg & Co., Inc. , 40 AD3d 1033, 1034 [citations omitted]; see Riviello v Waldron , 47 NY2d at 302-305 ). "[F]or an employee to be regarded as acting within the scope of h

2025Joseph's did not hire, train or supervise him. "[T]he imposition of liability under the doctrine of respondeat superior requires, at minimum, an existing relationship between the employer and the third person who committed the tortious act" ( see Loucks v. Community Home Care Servs ., 209 AD2d 484 [2d Dept 1994] citing D'Amico v. Christie , 71 NY2d 76 [1987]; Patricia B. v Brown , 149 AD2d 450 [2d Dept 1989]; Bell v Perrino , 112 AD2d 124 [2d Dept 1985]).

1998Supreme Court properly granted the motion of PEF for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and cross claims against it and denied plaintiffs cross motion for summary judgment establishing PEF’s vicarious liability for Glover’s negligence. “[T]he imposition of liability under the doctrine of respondeat superior requires, at minimum, an existing relationship between the employer and the third person who committed the tortious act” (Loucks v Community Home Care Servs., 209 AD2d 484 ; see, D’Amico v Christie, 71 NY2d 76, 89 ).

2025"The doctrine of respondeat superior renders an employer vicariously liable for torts committed by an employee acting in furtherance of the employer's business and within the scope of his or her employment" ( Brandford v Singh , 136 AD3d 726, 727 ; see Llorente v Wnorowski , 204 AD3d 656, 657 ). "'An employee's actions fall within the scope of employment where 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'" ( Montalvo v Episcopal Health Servs., Inc. , 172 AD3d 1357 , 1359, q

2025"The doctrine of respondeat superior renders an employer vicariously liable for torts committed by an employee acting in furtherance of the employer's business and within the scope of his or her employment" ( Brandford v Singh , 136 AD3d 726, 727 ; see Llorente v Wnorowski , 204 AD3d 656, 657 ). "'An employee's actions fall within the scope of employment where 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'" ( Montalvo v Episcopal Health Servs., Inc. , 172 AD3d 1357 , 1359, q

2025Bowman v. The State of New York, 10 A.D.3d 315 (1st Dept 2004); Riviello v. Waldron, 47 N.Y.2d 297, 302 (1979).

2019Thus, defendants are not liable for that fraud under the doctrine of respondeat superior ( see Bowman v State of New York , 10 AD3d 315, 316 [1st Dept 2004]).

2026Clare's Hosp. , 67 NY2d 72, 79 ).

2023Clare's Hosp. , 67 NY2d 72, 79 ; Goffredo v St.

2025Accordingly, the Supreme Court correctly granted that branch of the motion of Lutheran and Zwerling which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against Zwerling. "'In general, under the doctrine of respondeat superior, a hospital may be held vicariously liable for the negligence or malpractice of its employees acting within the scope of employment, but not for negligent treatment provided by an independent physician, as when the physician is retained by the patient himself [or herself]'" ( Fuessel v Chin , 179 AD3d 899, 901 , quoting Seiden v Sonstein , 127 AD3d

2024In support of WHMC's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it, WHMC failed to demonstrate, prima facie, that Tsukerman was a private, independent physician for whose negligent acts WHMC cannot be held liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior ( see Vargas v Lee , 207 AD3d 684, 686 ; Fuessel v Chin , 179 AD3d 899, 901 ).

2023"The doctrine of respondeat superior does not apply to impose vicarious liability upon supervisors" ( Connell v Hayden , 83 AD2d 30, 50 ; see Yaniv v Taub , 256 AD2d 273, 274 ).

2012“Business corporations are liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior for the torts of their employees committed within the scope of the corporate business and, as with any other corporation, professional service corporations are similarly vicariously liable for the torts of their servants.” (Poplawski v Gross, 81 AD3d 801, 802-803 [2d Dept 2011]; Connell v Hayden, 83 AD2d 30, 46 [1981]; see Keitel v Kurtz, 54 AD3d 387, 392 [2008]; Monir v Khandakar, 30 AD3d 487, 489 [2006].) Furthermore, the employee allegedly committing the tortious conduct is not a necessary party in an action against

2017We further conclude that the Sheriff is not liable for Meacham’s alleged verbal sexual harassment of plaintiff because “the doctrine of respondeat superior, or vicarious liability based on the agency relationship, is not available in cases involving . . . sex-based discrimination and its sexual harassment component” (Matter of Father Belle Community Ctr. v New York State Div. of Human Rights, 221 AD2d 44, 53 [1996], lv denied 89 NY2d 809 [1997]).

2017We further conclude that the Sheriff is not liable for Meacham’s alleged verbal sexual harassment of plaintiff because “the doctrine of respondeat superior, or vicarious liability based on the agency relationship, is not available in cases involving . . . sex-based discrimination and its sexual harassment component” (Matter of Father Belle Community Ctr. v New York State Div. of Human Rights, 221 AD2d 44, 53 [1996], lv denied 89 NY2d 809 [1997]).

2015The FTC defendants submitted evidence establishing, prima facie, that even if the plaintiffs’ version of the events is true, the superintendent was not acting within the scope of his employment at the time of the incident and the superintendent’s alleged conduct was not reasonably foreseeable by them (see Gui Ying Shi v McDonald’s Corp., 110 AD3d 678 , 679 [2013]; Yildiz v PJ Food Serv., Inc., 82 AD3d 971, 972 [2011]; Schuhmann v McBride, 23 AD3d 542, 543 [2005]; Brancato v Dee & Dee Purch., 296 AD2d 518, 519 [2002]).

2014However, the defendant is not vicariously liable for the security guard’s conduct because the evidence at trial established that the security guard was acting solely for personal motives unrelated to the defendant’s business at the time of the incident (see Gui Ying Shi v McDonald’s Corp., 110 AD3d at 680; Horvath v L & B Gardens, Inc., 89 AD3d at 803 ; Bowman v State of New York, 10 AD3d 315, 316-317 [2004]).

2025Ctr ., 97 NY2d 247 [2002], supra ), those acts which the employer could reasonably have foreseen are within the scope of the employment and thus give rise to liability under the doctrine of respondeat superior " ( see Holmes v Gary Goldberg & Co., Inc ., 40 AD3d 1033 [2d Dept 2007] citing Riviello v Waldron , 47 NY2d 297 [1979]). "[T]he employer may still be held liable under theories of negligent hiring, retention, and supervision of the employee" ( see Johansmeyer v New York City Dept. of Educ ., 165 AD3d 634 [2d Dept 2018] citing Chichester v Wallace , 150 AD3d 1073 [2d Dept 2017]; Kenneth

2025Ctr ., 97 NY2d 247 [2002], supra ), those acts which the employer could reasonably have foreseen are within the scope of the employment and thus give rise to liability under the doctrine of respondeat superior " ( see Holmes v Gary Goldberg & Co., Inc ., 40 AD3d 1033 [2d Dept 2007] citing Riviello v Waldron , 47 NY2d 297 [1979]). "[T]he employer may still be held liable under theories of negligent hiring, retention, and supervision of the employee" ( see Johansmeyer v New York City Dept. of Educ ., 165 AD3d 634 [2d Dept 2018] citing Chichester v Wallace , 150 AD3d 1073 [2d Dept 2017]; Kenneth

2001When a professional person employed by a hospital commits an act of malpractice, the hospital may be liable derivatively under the doctrine of respondeat superior (see, Fiorentino v Wenger, 19 NY2d 407, 414 ).

1985A physician’s involvement as a director or stockholder of a hospital does not supply any inference that the hospital controlled or supervised his private practice plaintiff failed to submit any other proof that Dr. Rish was the actual or apparent agent of the hospital, hence, under the circumstances here, the hospital cannot be held vicariously liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior (Fiorentino v Wenger, 19 NY2d 407 ; Smith v Ferro, 86 AD2d 752 ).