| Jackson v New York Univ. Downtown Hosp. |
| 2010 NY Slip Op 00476 [69 AD3d 801] |
| January 19, 2010 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Bridget Jackson et al., Appellants, v New York UniversityDowntown Hospital, Respondent, et al., Defendant. |
—[*1] Martin Clearwater & Bell LLP, New York, N.Y. (Arjay G. Yao, Robert T. Whittaker, andCharles S. Schechter of counsel), for respondent.
In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for personal injuries based upon negligent hiringand supervision, etc., the plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order ofthe Supreme Court, Kings County (Steinhardt, J.), dated October 24, 2007, as amended January9, 2008, as granted the motion of the defendant New York University Downtown Hospital forsummary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it.
Ordered that the order, as amended, is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
Although an employer cannot be held vicariously liable "for torts committed by an employeewho is acting solely for personal motives unrelated to the furtherance of the employer's business"(Fernandez v Rustic Inn, Inc., 60AD3d 893, 896 [2009]; see Judith M. v Sisters of Charity Hosp., 93 NY2d 932, 933[1999]; R. v R., 37 AD3d 577,578 [2007]; Steinborn v Himmel, 9AD3d 531, 532 [2004]), the employer may be held liable for negligent hiring, supervision,and retention of the employee (seeSandra M. v St. Luke's Roosevelt Hosp. Ctr., 33 AD3d 875, 878-879 [2006]; Peter T. v Children's Vil., Inc., 30AD3d 582, 586 [2006]; Carnegie vJ.P. Phillips, Inc., 28 AD3d 599, 600 [2006]; Doe v Rohan, 17 AD3d 509, 512 [2005]; Kenneth R. v RomanCatholic Diocese of Brooklyn, 229 AD2d 159, 161 [1997], cert denied 522 US 967[1997]).
To establish a cause of action based on negligent hiring and supervision, it must be shownthat "the employer knew or should have known of the employee's propensity for the conductwhich caused the injury" (Kenneth R. v Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn, 229AD2d at 161; see Sandra M. v St. Luke's Roosevelt Hosp. Ctr., 33 AD3d at 878;Peter T. v Children's Vil., Inc., 30 AD3d at 586; Travis v United Health Servs. Hosps., Inc., 23 AD3d 884, 884-885[2005]; Ghaffari v North RocklandCent. School Dist., 23 AD3d 342, 343-344 [2005]; Doe v Rohan, 17 AD3d 509, 512 [2005]; Oliva v City of NewYork, 297 AD2d 789, 791 [2002]). "Moreover, '[t]here is no common-law duty to institutespecific procedures for hiring employees unless the employer knows of facts that would lead areasonably prudent person to investigate the prospective employee' " (Carnegie v J.P.Phillips, Inc., 28 AD3d at 600, quoting Doe v Whitney, 8 AD3d 610, 612 [2004]).[*2]
Here, the defendant New York University DowntownHospital (hereinafter NYUDH) established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter oflaw. In opposition, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see Alvarez v ProspectHosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324-325 [1986]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly grantedNYUDH's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it.Mastro, J.P., Fisher, Belen and Austin, JJ., concur. [Prior Case History: 18 Misc 3d 1109(A),2007 NY Slip Op 52481(U).]