From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Singh v. Alliance Bldg. Servs., LLC

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Jan 19, 2017
146 A.D.3d 610 (N.Y. App. Div. 2017)

Opinion

01-19-2017

Gurpreet SINGH, Plaintiff–Respondent–Appellant, v. ALLIANCE BUILDING SERVICES, LLC, et al., Defendants–Appellants–Respondents.

Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith, LLP, New York (Michael Zisser of counsel), for appellants-respondents. The Bostany Law Firm PLLC, New York (John P. Bostany of counsel), for respondent-appellant.


Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith, LLP, New York (Michael Zisser of counsel), for appellants-respondents.

The Bostany Law Firm PLLC, New York (John P. Bostany of counsel), for respondent-appellant.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Eileen A. Rakower, J.), entered on or about January 12, 2016, which denied as moot plaintiff's motion for summary judgment dismissing defendant David Diaz's counterclaims on the ground of noncompliance with discovery orders, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Order, same court (Arlene P. Bluth, J.), entered on or about May 4, 2016, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the respondeat superior claim, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion granted.

Defendants established a reasonable excuse for Diaz's failure to provide unrestricted medical authorizations before the deadline set by the court's conditional order of preclusion and meritorious counterclaims (see Gibbs v. St. Barnabas Hosp., 16 N.Y.3d 74, 917 N.Y.S.2d 68, 942 N.E.2d 277 [2010] ).

Here, there is no evidence that Diaz's assault was motivated by a desire to further any interest of his employer whatsoever,

nor is there any evidence that the employer condoned, instigated, or authorized the assault (Taylor v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 72 A.D.3d 573, 899 N.Y.S.2d 223 [1st Dept.2010], lv. denied 15 N.Y.3d 705, 2010 WL 3396877 [2010] ; compare Ramos v. Jake Realty Co., 21 A.D.3d 744, 745, 801 N.Y.S.2d 566 [1st Dept.2005] ). Accordingly, the employer cannot be held vicariously liable on a respondeat superior theory.

ANDRIAS, J.P., SAXE, FEINMAN, GISCHE, KAHN, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Singh v. Alliance Bldg. Servs., LLC

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Jan 19, 2017
146 A.D.3d 610 (N.Y. App. Div. 2017)
Case details for

Singh v. Alliance Bldg. Servs., LLC

Case Details

Full title:Gurpreet SINGH, Plaintiff–Respondent–Appellant, v. ALLIANCE BUILDING…

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.

Date published: Jan 19, 2017

Citations

146 A.D.3d 610 (N.Y. App. Div. 2017)
2017 N.Y. Slip Op. 406
44 N.Y.S.3d 758

Citing Cases

Jiraud v. Barnes & Noble, Inc.

In opposition, plaintiff failed to raise an issue of fact.Defendant also established that it cannot be held…