Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Suzanne A. GUACCI, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. OGDEN BROS. COLLISION, INC., et al., Defendants-Appellants, Susan L. Daniels, Defendant, Danielle Virgil, Defendant-Respondent.
Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Norma Ruiz, J.), entered on or about April 11, 2006, which denied the motion of defendants Ogden Bros. Collision and Lynch for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against them, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion granted. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment in favor of Ogden and Lynch dismissing the complaint as against them.
Lynch's parking at an accident scene to tow a disabled vehicle was not one of the causes of the accident, but merely furnished the instrumentality by which plaintiff was injured when defendant Virgil's car hit Lynch's tow truck, causing the tow truck, in turn, to hit plaintiff (see Sheehan v. City of New York, 40 N.Y.2d 496, 503, 387 N.Y.S.2d 92, 354 N.E.2d 832 [1976] ). It is also clear that defendant Virgil's negligence was the sole proximate cause of plaintiff's injuries (see id.; see also Baptiste v. New York City Tr. Auth., 28 A.D.3d 385, 387, 814 N.Y.S.2d 136 [2006] ).
Plaintiff identified no facts in the record possibly demonstrating that Ogden had failed to make appropriate inquiries upon hiring Lynch, or that Ogden had notice of any allegedly negligent conduct by Lynch while he was an employee of Ogden. As a result, the cause of action for negligent hiring and retention should have been dismissed (see Honohan v. Martin's Food of S. Burlington, 255 A.D.2d 627, 679 N.Y.S.2d 478 [1998] ).
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Decided: April 12, 2007
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)