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.
Volko KERZHNER, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. G4S GOVERNMENT SOLUTIONS, INC., et al., Defendants–Respondents, Elliot Ray, Defendant.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Cynthia S. Kern, J.), entered February 16, 2017, which granted the motion of defendants G4S Government Solutions, Inc., and Wackenhut Services, Incorporated (collectively defendants) for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Plaintiff alleges that, while at a Social Security Administration office to address an issue with his benefits, defendant Ray, a security guard employed by defendants, pushed him to the ground without provocation. Plaintiff's intentional tort claims were previously dismissed as barred by the statute of limitations, leaving only a claim that defendants were liable for negligent hiring, training and supervision (see 138 A.D.3d 564, 30 N.Y.S.3d 620 [1st Dept. 2016] ).
Supreme Court properly granted defendants' motion. Defendants submitted an affidavit from the former deputy general manager for defendant G4S Government Solutions' operations, who stated, among other things, that the security guard's duties include removing individuals from the premises. Since Ray acted within the scope of his employment in ushering plaintiff out of the office, his actions were within the scope of his employment and thus, the negligent hiring claim must be dismissed (see Karoon v. New York City Tr. Auth., 241 A.D.2d 323, 324, 659 N.Y.S.2d 27 [1st Dept. 1997]; Ashley v. City of New York, 7 A.D.3d 742, 779 N.Y.S.2d 502 [2d Dept. 2004] ).
Plaintiff's opposition failed to raise an issue of fact as to whether defendant Ray was acting within the scope of his employment. Indeed, the video of the incident shows defendant Ray escorting plaintiff out of the premises.
Plaintiff's argument that dismissal is not required because he is seeking punitive damages (see Karoon at 324, 659 N.Y.S.2d 27) is unavailing, as the claim for punitive damages was previously dismissed and the dismissal was affirmed by this Court (see 138 A.D.3d at 564, 30 N.Y.S.3d 620).
We have considered plaintiff's remaining arguments and find them unavailing.
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.
Docket No: 6272
Decided: April 12, 2018
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)