From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Liddell v. Slocum-Dickson Medical Group

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Jun 16, 2000
273 A.D.2d 924 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)

Opinion

June 16, 2000.

Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Oneida County, Grow, J. — Summary Judgment.

PRESENT: PIGOTT, JR., P. J., GREEN, HAYES AND HURLBUTT, JJ.


Order unanimously affirmed with costs. Memorandum: Plaintiffs commenced this action to recover damages for injuries allegedly sustained by Sally J. Liddell (plaintiff) as the result of a venipuncture performed by defendant Louanne Apel, a phlebotomist employed by defendant Slocum-Dickson Medical Group, P.C. (Slocum-Dickson). Supreme Court properly granted defendants' motion for partial summary judgment dismissing the fourth cause of action, alleging that Slocum-Dickson was negligent in hiring and supervising Apel. Because Apel was acting within the scope of her employment when plaintiff was injured, Slocum-Dickson is liable for any damages caused by Apel's alleged negligence under the doctrine of respondeat superior, and "no claim may proceed against the employer for negligent hiring" or supervision ( Karoon v. New York City Tr. Auth., 241 A.D.2d 323, 324; see, Eifert v. Bush, 27 A.D.2d 950, 951, affd 22 N.Y.2d 681; Weinberg v. Guttman Breast Diagnostic Inst., 254 A.D.2d 213).


Summaries of

Liddell v. Slocum-Dickson Medical Group

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Jun 16, 2000
273 A.D.2d 924 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
Case details for

Liddell v. Slocum-Dickson Medical Group

Case Details

Full title:SALLY J. LIDDELL AND PAUL R. LIDDELL, PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS, v…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department

Date published: Jun 16, 2000

Citations

273 A.D.2d 924 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
710 N.Y.S.2d 278

Citing Cases

Rowley v. City of New York

Accordingly, under the theory of respondeat superior an employer is liable for any damages caused by an…

Perkins v. City of Rochester

" Stokes v. City of New York, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 32787 at *53 (E.D.N.Y. 2007) (emphasis added), quoting…