Determining if the employer is vicariously liable for torts committed by its employees

In a claim to recover damages for personal injuries, Petitioner appealed an order of the Court of Claims which granted the State of New York's [Defendant] motion for summary judgment dismissing the Petitioner's claim.

Petitioner commenced this action in New York State's Court of Claims seeking to recover damages for personal injuries he alleged he had suffered when "he was assaulted by a correction officer". State moved for summary judgment dismissing the claim, contending that it could not be held liable for the assault under the doctrine of respondeat superior. 

The Court of Claims granted the State's motion and Petitioner appealed the Court of Claims' ruling.

The Appellate Division, citing Rivera v State of New York, 34 NY3d 383, observed that "Under the common-law doctrine of respondeat superior, an employer — including the State — may be held vicariously liable for torts, including intentional torts, committed by employees acting within the scope of their employment", provided that the tortious conduct is 'generally foreseeable and a natural incident of the employment'".

In determining if an employee was acting within the scope of his or her employment for purposes of determining vicarious liability of an employer courts consider:

1. The connection between the time, place and occasion for the act; 

2. The history of the relationship between employer and employee as spelled out in actual practice; 

3. Whether the act is one commonly done by such an employee; 

4. The extent of departure from normal methods of performance; and 

5. Whether the specific act was one that the employer could reasonably have anticipated.

Further, in cases involving a use of force, whether an employee is acting within the scope of  his or her employment requires consideration of whether the employee was authorized to use force to effectuate the goals and duties of his or her employment. 

In the instant action, the Court of Claims granted the State's motion to dismiss Plaintiff's claim, finding that the State could not be held liable for the assault under the doctrine of respondeat superior. Petitioner appealed. 

The Appellate Division affirmed the Court of Claims' ruling, observing that "the [State] established, prima facie, that the correction officer was not acting within the scope of his employment when he assaulted the [Petitioner]" and Petitioner failed to raise a triable issue of fact.

In the words of the Appellate Division, "the Court of Claims properly granted that branch of the [State's] motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the [Plaintiff's] claim".

Click HERE to access the Appellate Division's decision posted on the Internet.

Selected items posted on the Internet during the week ending August 21, 2026 and reported by NYPPL pro bono which may be of interest to readers

New York Health Policy Monitor Published by I.H. Michaels, LLC, an independent health policy and data analytics practice is informational and does not constitute legal or policy advice. For questions, pricing for organizations, or data services inquiries, contact: info@ihmichaelsllc.com

Houston adopted a new law clarifying landlords’ obligation to provide air conditioning in rental units. Many jurisdictions have no such rules, raising concerns about health and safety as the planet warms. Read More

Better User Experiences, Better Government: Designing the Modern Workplace In this thought leadership paper, explore how the Texas Teachers Retirement System redesigned its workplace to create a more seamless employee experience, improve collaboration and reduce IT complexity. Download the paper to learn five practical best practices for modernizing meeting spaces, supporting hybrid work and building workplaces that empower employees to focus on serving the public. DOWNLOAD

From Threat to Trust: Building Security into Public Workflows Protecting today's public sector means building security into every workflow — not bolting it on afterward. This thought leadership paper explores why embedding security directly into devices and everyday workflows is essential for reducing risk, improving resilience and supporting mission success. Download the full paper to learn how your organization can make security a seamless part of daily operations. DOWNLOAD

Improving Emergency Response with Modern Cellular Networks This e-book features real-world examples from police, fire, EMS, and 911 agencies that have strengthened connectivity across vehicles, stations, and temporary command sites. DOWNLOAD 

Reimagining Permitting and Licensing with AI: A Blueprint for Cities & Counties This guide explores how cities and counties can modernize permitting and licensing with a unified approach that improves collaboration, strengthens public trust and positions communities for long-term growth. DOWNLOAD

Keeping Public Services Accessible During Emergencies Power outages, severe weather, and equipment failures don't stop the need for public services. Learn how agencies can prepare for unexpected disruptions while maintaining reliable communications with staff and the communities they serve. DOWNLOAD

Applied Intelligence: How High-Performance Workstations Are Driving Public Innovation AI innovation starts with the right infrastructure. Learn how high-performance workstations help government agencies process data faster, protect sensitive information and power AI-driven outcomes. Download the paper to discover practical strategies for modernizing your technology foundation. DOWNLOAD

Deliver better government. Inside and out. Turn experience insights into action and drive measurable impact with one FedRAMP High authorized platform. Learn more

Unlock what's next for AI Discover lessons from government leaders on AI, finance ops, and change management at PayIt GovLab. Get your free pass

Appellate Division finds employment agreement did not provide for certain health insurance premium payment claimed by retiree

Plaintiff, the school district's former District Superintendent, and the School District [District] had entered into an employment agreement pursuant to which Plaintiff was hired as the District's superintendent. 

As relevant in the instant litigation, the employment agreement provided that Plaintiff and her qualified dependents "shall be eligible, during retirement, for continuing health, dental and vision insurance coverages under the plan(s) available through the District" and that the District "will pay one hundred percent (100%) of the premiums of such coverage."

Upon her retirement in 2017, Plaintiff obtained retiree health insurance through the District's plan. Several years later, Plaintiff applied for Medicare Part B—an insurance plan not available through the District—and paid premiums for that coverage. Plaintiff then asked District for reimbursement for the Medicare premiums she had paid. 

The District denied Plaintiff's request on the ground that the District's plan did not allow individuals who received 100% of the retiree health coverage paid for by the District to receive reimbursement for Medicare Part B premiums. 

Claiming "breach of contract", Plaintiff commenced the instant action seeking reimbursement of Medicare premiums paid by Plaintiff and a declaration that the District was required to pay such premiums for her and her qualified dependents'. Supreme Court granted District's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and  Plaintiff appealed.

The Appellate Division said that the District met its initial burden on the motion inasmuch as it had submitted the employment agreement, Plaintiff's deposition testimony, the District's policy documents, and its health plan documents ... all of which established that the employment agreement did not require the District to reimburse Plaintiff for the premiums for Medicare Part B, which was not an insurance plan offered by the District. 

The Appellate Division's decision noted that the agreement provided that Plaintiff was entitled to "continuing health, dental and vision insurance coverages under the plan(s) available through the District" but Plaintiff sought "reimbursement for premiums under a Medicare plan not provided through the District". 

Accordingly, the Appellate Division held that Plaintiff was not entitled to reimbursement of the premiums for the Medicare Part B coverage Plaintiff had purchased.

Click HERE to access the Appellate Division's decision posted on the Internet.