From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Rhames v. Supermarkets General Corporation

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Aug 12, 1996
230 A.D.2d 780 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)

Opinion

August 12, 1996


In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant Supermarkets General Corporation appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Nicolai, J.), entered March 24, 1995, as denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it.

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

The plaintiff was allegedly injured when he was assaulted by the defendant Chris Whitaker on the premises of the defendant Supermarkets General Corporation (hereinafter Pathmark). At the time of the assault, Whitaker was employed by Pathmark. The plaintiff seeks to recover damages from Pathmark based on, among other theories, negligent hiring and retention.

We agree with the Supreme Court that issues of fact exist concerning Pathmark's notice of Whitaker's dangerous propensities as well as Pathmark's hiring procedures, precluding the grant of summary judgment in its favor ( see, Hall v Smathers, 240 N.Y. 486; Mercer v State of New York, 125 A.D.2d 376). Miller, J.P., Ritter, Santucci and Altman, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Rhames v. Supermarkets General Corporation

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Aug 12, 1996
230 A.D.2d 780 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)
Case details for

Rhames v. Supermarkets General Corporation

Case Details

Full title:WENFORD RHAMES, Respondent, v. SUPERMARKETS GENERAL CORPORATION…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Aug 12, 1996

Citations

230 A.D.2d 780 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)
646 N.Y.S.2d 622

Citing Cases

Kenneth R. v. R.C. Diocese

The question of whether there is such a common-law duty is a question of law for the courts (see, D'Amico v.…

Jennings v. Raso

The plaintiff asserts that the defendant was negligent in failing to commence an action against the bar and,…