Legal Memorandum: Summary Judgment in Employee Negligence Cases

Issue: Under New York law, is summary judgment appropriate on a claim that employee-tortfeasors were acting within the scope of their employment?

           It is well-settled New York law that “[s]ummary judgment is a drastic remedy, rarely granted in negligence cases, which should be denied if there is any doubt as to the existence of a triable issue.”  Pontello v. County of Onondaga, 94 A.D.2d 427, 464 N.Y.S.2d 891, 894 (4th Dep’t 1983).  When a reasonable view of the evidence supports an assessment of liability, the court may not bar the plaintiff from presenting evidence to the factfinder regarding the defendant’s negligence.  Id., 464 N.Y.S.2d at 894.  On a motion for summary judgment, the court’s concern is not issue determination, but issue finding.  Stevens v. Parker, 99 A.D.2d 649, 472 N.Y.S.2d 225, 226 (4th Dep’t 1984) (reversing summary judgment in the employer’s favor because the employee raised triable issues of fact in his sworn statement).  The trial court must carefully scrutinize the affidavits in the light most favorable to the party opposing summary judgment.  Robinson v. Strong Mem’l Hosp., 98 A.D.2d 976, 470 N.Y.S.2d 239, 240 (4th Dep’t 1983).  When an affidavit raises triable questions of fact, summary judgment is inappropriate.  Id., 470 N.Y.S.2d at 240 (unanimously reversing the trial court’s grant of summary judgment).

New York law is also settled that an employer is responsible for the negligent acts of its employee if the employee was acting in furtherance of the employer’s business and within the scope of the employee’s authority at the time of the acts.  […]