Opinion
February 9, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Edward Greenfield, J.).
The IAS Court properly found defendants-respondents not liable pursuant to the doctrine of respondeat superior where their employee, defendant Catalic, whose job duties as a maintenance man-porter were limited to on-premises tasks, accidentally injured plaintiff, a pedestrian, when he left the premises on his break to drive his supervisor and two independent contractors to a job site, as a favor, in a van owned by defendant Reliable (his supervisor's side business corporation). Defendants have no respondeat superior liability as a matter of law since defendant Catalic, in operating the motor vehicle at the time of the accident, was not acting in furtherance of his employer's interests, nor was he acting pursuant to any duty owed to his employer, and there was no showing that this substantial deviation from usual performance was reasonably forseeable (see, Overton v. Ebert, 180 A.D.2d 955, lv denied 80 N.Y.2d 751; Stavitz v. City of New York, 98 A.D.2d 529).
Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Wallach, Rubin, Ross and Tom, JJ.