598 F. App'x 42
2d Cir.2015Background
- Doe alleges Montefiore entities are liable for negligent supervision/retention and breach of fiduciary duty after an on-site sexual assault by Dr. Saulle, an employee of defendants.
- The assault occurred on defendants' premises, and Saulle was acting within the scope of his employment.
- District Court granted summary judgment on negligent supervision/retention and later dismissed the remaining claims with prejudice by stipulation.
- New York law requires an employer–employee relationship, knowledge or constructive knowledge of the employee's propensity for the conduct, and the crime occurring on the employer's premises for negligent supervision/retention claims.
- There is a split in New York authority on foreseeability; the court need not resolve it here and holds there was no genuine dispute that defendants did not know or should have known of Saulle's propensity.
- The court affirms the district court's judgment, including the dismissal of the fiduciary duty claim for the same reason.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether negligent supervision/retention liability requires foreseeability of the assault | Doe argues foreseeability/propensity supports liability | Montefiore argues no known propensity | No genuine dispute of foreseeability; district court's grant affirmed |
| Whether breach of fiduciary duty fails for lack of foreseeability | Doe contends fiduciary breach based on supervision failure | Montefiore asserts no foreseeability, same as negligence claim | Affirmed for lack of propensity/foreseeability |
Key Cases Cited
- Ehrens v. Lutheran Church, 385 F.3d 232 (2d Cir. 2004) (negligent supervision elements require foreseeability of misconduct)