From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Wimmer v. Pratt Institute

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jun 6, 1978
63 A.D.2d 885 (N.Y. App. Div. 1978)

Opinion

June 6, 1978


Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered August 24, 1977, which granted defendant John C. Mandel Security Bureau, Inc.'s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that plaintiff's complaint is time-barred and order of said court, entered November 25, 1977, which granted defendant Pratt Institute's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that plaintiff's complaint is time-barred, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs and disbursements, and the motions denied. In this action plaintiff seeks to recover for damages allegedly resulting from the negligence of defendants Pratt Institute and John C. Mandel Security Bureau, Inc., in the hiring and retaining in their employ Frederick Percell who had alleged known vicious tendencies and assaulted and injured plaintiff on October 28, 1973. Viewing plaintiff's action as one for an assault and battery governed by the one-year Statute of Limitations, Special Term dismissed the complaint as the action commenced on or about November 5, 1976. While it is true that the plaintiff's injury resulted from the assault committed by Percell, the plaintiff is not thereby relegated only to a cause of action for assault and battery. "A single act or default causing a single injury may constitute a breach of different duties and may give rise to causes of action based upon different grounds of liability and subject to different statutory periods of limitations (Schram v. Cotton, 281 N.Y. 499; House v. Carr, 135 N.Y. 453, 458)" (King v King, 13 A.D.2d 437, 440). Plaintiff's action sounds in negligence against these defendants for the hiring of one who they allegedly knew had vicious tendencies (see Hall v Smathers, 240 N.Y. 486; Lopez v Burns Int. Protective Agency, 48 A.D.2d 645). It is the alleged negligent hiring which is the gravamen of the complaint and this is governed by the three-year Statute of Limitations (CPLR 214).

Concur — Lupiano, J.P., Birns, Lane, Markewich and Sandler, JJ.


Summaries of

Wimmer v. Pratt Institute

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jun 6, 1978
63 A.D.2d 885 (N.Y. App. Div. 1978)
Case details for

Wimmer v. Pratt Institute

Case Details

Full title:FRANK J. WIMMER, Appellant, v. PRATT INSTITUTE et al., Respondents

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

Date published: Jun 6, 1978

Citations

63 A.D.2d 885 (N.Y. App. Div. 1978)

Citing Cases

Schultz v. Boy Scouts of Amer

Plaintiffs recognize that Coakeley's acts were not performed with a view toward his service with the…

Jarvis v. Nation of Islam

Although plaintiffs' alleged injuries resulted from an assault, they are "not thereby relegated only to a…