Opinion
Argued March 6, 2000.
April 20, 2000.
In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for negligent hiring, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Bergerman, J.), dated January 14, 1999, which granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
Rosenman Colin, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Lauren Reiter Brody of counsel), for appellant.
Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman Dicker, LLP, New York, N. Y. (Richard E. Lerner of counsel), for respondents.
GUY JAMES MANGANO, P.J., LAWRENCE J. BRACKEN, LEO F. McGINITY, DANIEL F. LUCIANO, JJ.
DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The defendants are in the business of providing health aides to individuals who need home care. The plaintiff and his sister, the decedent Betty Ann Griffo, contracted with the defendants for an aide to care for their father in Ms. Griffo's home. While in the defendants' employ, the aide provided approximately 115 hours of the requisite service. Ms. Griffo, however, then hired the aide privately to care for her father in her home. Approximately five months later, the aide murdered Ms. Griffo.
The Supreme Court properly determined that the defendants were not liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior for Ms. Griffo's murder, as the employer-employee relationship had ended by the time of the murder (see, Koran I. v. New York City Bd. of Educ., 256 A.D.2d 189, 191 ; Loucks v. Community Home Care Servs., 209 A.D.2d 484 ). In addition, in committing the murder the aide acted outside the scope of his employment (see, Koran I. v. New York City Bd. of Educ., supra; Kenneth R. v. Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn, 229 A.D.2d 159, 161, cert denied 522 U.S. 967 ).
Similarly, the Supreme Court properly granted summary judgment to the defendants on the issue of negligent hiring or supervision of the home health aide. The defendants were under no duty to inquire into the possibility that the home health aide had been previously convicted of crimes (see, Amendolara v. Macy's N.Y., 19 A.D.2d 702 ). In addition, the evidence reveals that the defendants checked all of the prior job references of the home health aide, but found nothing which might alert them to his violent propensities or prior drug use (see, Koran I. v. New York City Bd. of Educ., supra; Kenneth R. v. Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn, supra). Nor was there any evidence that the defendants learned of his violent propensities or prior drug use after they hired him. In any event, any connection between the defendants' hiring of the aide and the murder was severed when the aide left the defendants' employ over 5 months prior to the murder, and was hired by Ms. Griffo to work for her privately (see, Koran I. v. New York City Bd. of Educ., supra; Ford v. Gildin, 200 A.D.2d 224 ). Accordingly, the defendants established their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law and the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact.
The plaintiff's remaining contentions are without merit.