Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1998

Jaccarino v. Supermarkets General Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York · Decided July 27, 1998

252 A.D.2d 572; 676 N.Y.S.2d 606; 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8642

Cases that cite this one

10 later published cases cite this decision.

Norwood v. Simon Prop. Group, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2021)
Dean v. City of Buffalo (District Court, W.D. New York 2008)
Cherry v. Utica Dialysis Ctr. (New York Supreme Court, Kings County 2003)
Corson v. City of New York (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2002)
I.K. v. City of New York (New York Supreme Court, New York County 2024)
Jones v. Hiro Cocktail Lounge (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2016)
Porcelli v. Key Food Stores Co-Operative, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2007)
Visken v. Oriole Realty Corp. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2003)
Baptiste v. New York City Transit Authority (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2000)
Smalls v. New York City Transit Authority (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1999)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

—In an action to recover damages for assault, false arrest, and negligent hiring, the defendant appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Belen, J.), dated July 31, 1997, as denied that branch of its motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the plaintiffs cause of action to recover damages for assault.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

Contrary to the defendant’s contentions, evidence indicating that it specifically instructed its security guards to refrain from physical contact with customers does not compel the conclusion that, as a matter of law, the security guard in question was acting beyond the scope of his employment when he allegedly assaulted the plaintiff (see, Riviello v Waldron, 47 NY2d 297, 302; see also, Sims v Bergamo, 3 NY2d 531; Smith v The Limited, 237 AD2d 345; Young Bai Choi v D & D Novelties, 157 AD2d 777). As stated by the Supreme Court, the circumstances surrounding the altercation are in sharp dispute such that summary judgment on the plaintiffs assault claim is inappropriate (see, Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557). Rosenblatt, J. P., Ritter, Copertino and Florio, JJ., concur.

Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.