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.
Tracy BUMPUS, respondent, v. NEW YORK CITY TRANSIT AUTHORITY, appellant, et al., defendant.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant New York City Transit Authority appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hinds-Radix, J.), dated July 11, 2007, which denied its motion pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against it for failure to state a cause of action.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
On a motion to dismiss a complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7), the complaint must be liberally construed. All allegations contained in it must be accepted as true, and the plaintiff must be accorded “the benefit of every possible favorable inference” (Leon v. Martinez, 84 N.Y.2d 83, 87, 614 N.Y.S.2d 972, 638 N.E.2d 511). The appropriate inquiry is whether the complaint, so viewed, states “ ‘in some recognizable form any cause of action known to our law’ ” (Antico v. Richmond Hous. Assoc., 196 A.D.2d 853, 602 N.Y.S.2d 179, quoting Dulberg v. Mock, 1 N.Y.2d 54, 56, 150 N.Y.S.2d 180, 133 N.E.2d 695; see Manno v. Mione, 249 A.D.2d 372, 372, 670 N.Y.S.2d 368).
A necessary element of a cause of action alleging negligent retention or negligent supervision is that the “employer knew or should have known of the employee's propensity for the conduct which caused the injury” (Kenneth R. v. Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn, 229 A.D.2d 159, 161, 654 N.Y.S.2d 791, cert. denied 522 U.S. 967, 118 S.Ct. 413, 139 L.Ed.2d 316; see Peter T. v. Children's Vil., Inc., 30 A.D.3d 582, 586, 819 N.Y.S.2d 44; Well v. Yeshiva Rambam, 300 A.D.2d 580, 581, 753 N.Y.S.2d 512; Manno v. Mione, 249 A.D.2d at 373, 670 N.Y.S.2d 368). Here, the plaintiff adequately pleaded causes of action to recover damages for negligent retention and negligent supervision. In addition, the plaintiff adequately pleaded a cause of action alleging negligent training. Thus, the Supreme Court properly denied the appellant's motion to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against it for failure to state a cause of action (see CPLR 3211[a] [7] ).
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: January 15, 2008
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second 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)