From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Diana F. v. Velez

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
Mar 18, 2015
2015 N.Y. Slip Op. 2096 (N.Y. App. Div. 2015)

Opinion

2013-09822 Index No. 29761/08

03-18-2015

Diana F. (Anonymous), etc., et al., respondents, v. Jose Velez, etc., defendant, Pentecostal Assembly, Inc., et al., appellants.

Simon Lesser P.C., New York, N.Y. (Leonard F. Lesser and Siobhain Minarovich of counsel), for appellants. Callan & Byrnes, LLP (Arnold E. DiJoseph, P.C., New York, N.Y. [Arnold E. DiJoseph III], of counsel), for respondents.


LEONARD B. AUSTIN

SHERI S. ROMAN

BETSY BARROS, JJ.

Simon Lesser P.C., New York, N.Y. (Leonard F. Lesser and Siobhain Minarovich of counsel), for appellants.

Callan & Byrnes, LLP (Arnold E. DiJoseph, P.C., New York, N.Y. [Arnold E. DiJoseph III], of counsel), for respondents.

DECISION & ORDER

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendants Pentecostal Assembly, Inc., Angel L. Roman, Sr., and Luis Serrano appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Silber, J.), dated September 30, 2013, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The complaint alleges that the defendants Pentecostal Assembly, Inc., Angel L. Roman, Sr., and Luis Serrano (hereinafter collectively the defendants) negligently hired and supervised the defendant Jose Velez, who sexually assaulted the infant plaintiff. A claim based on negligent hiring and supervision requires a showing that the defendants knew of Velez's propensity to commit the alleged acts or that the defendants should have known of such propensity had they conducted an adequate hiring procedure (see Kenneth R. v Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn, 229 AD2d 159, 161). Here, the defendants failed to establish their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, since they did not demonstrate that they had no specific knowledge of, and had no reason to have known of, Velez's propensity for sexual misconduct (cf. Ghaffari v North Rockland Cent. School Dist., 23 AD3d 342, 343).

Since the defendants failed to establish their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, it is not necessary to consider the sufficiency of the plaintiffs' opposition papers (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them.

RIVERA, J.P., AUSTIN, ROMAN and BARROS, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Aprilanne Agostino

Clerk of the Court


Summaries of

Diana F. v. Velez

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
Mar 18, 2015
2015 N.Y. Slip Op. 2096 (N.Y. App. Div. 2015)
Case details for

Diana F. v. Velez

Case Details

Full title:Diana F. (Anonymous), etc., et al., respondents, v. Jose Velez, etc.…

Court:SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department

Date published: Mar 18, 2015

Citations

2015 N.Y. Slip Op. 2096 (N.Y. App. Div. 2015)
2 N.Y.S.3d 915

Citing Cases

Smith v. Conway Stores, Inc.

Contrary to the defendant's contention, the complaint, as amplified by the bill of particulars, alleged that…

Pater v. City of Buffalo

ss plaintiffs' theory that the City defendants' negligence arose from the inadequacy of the procedures used…