Mon v. City of New York
| Decision Date | 12 July 1990 |
| Citation | 557 N.Y.S.2d 925,163 A.D.2d 212 |
| Parties | Rodney and Andre MON, Plaintiffs-Respondents, v. The CITY OF NEW YORK, et al., Defendants-Appellants. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
E.S. Rudofsky, for plaintiffs-respondents.
W.J. Thom, S.C. Worth, for defendants-appellants.
Before KUPFERMAN, J.P., and MILONAS, ELLERIN, WALLACH and RUBIN, JJ.
Judgment of the Supreme Court, Bronx County (Lewis R. Friedman, J.), entered June 8, 1989, after jury trial, upon a verdict which awarded damages to plaintiffs Rodney and Andre Mon in the amounts of $12,625.50 and $1,000,000, respectively, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
This litigation arose out of an argument between plaintiffs and an off-duty police officer, who ultimately shot both of them. The jury found that neither shooting was justified, but determined that 50% of Rodney Mon's injuries were attributable to his own acts.
On appeal, the City contests the submission to the jury of the question of whether or not the City ratified the arrest of Andre Mon. We note that this case is distinguishable from Stavitz v. City of New York, 98 A.D.2d 529, 471 N.Y.S.2d 272, cited by the City. There is no evidence here that the police officer assumed the role of complaining witness by signing a complaint or making a statement at the scene upon which the arrest was based. Indeed, the officer refused to give a statement later that night when interviewed by an Assistant District Attorney. Under these circumstances, the jury could have found that the City, which placed Andre Mon under police guard at the hospital after the shooting, adopted the arrest initiated by Shankman at the scene.
There was also sufficient evidence to submit to the jury the issue of whether or not the City was negligent in hiring Shankman. An employer may be required to answer in damages for a tort committed by an employee against a third party when the employee was hired with knowledge of his propensity for the sort of behavior which resulted in injury ( Detone v. Bullit Courier Serv., 140 A.D.2d 278, 279, 528 N.Y.S.2d 575, app. den. 73 N.Y.2d 702, 537 N.Y.S.2d 490, 534 N.E.2d 328). When it hired Shankman, the City was aware of his prior arrest and conviction for disorderly conduct which arose from the shooting out of a store window by a codefendant. Moreover, the City was aware of the scathing remarks made by the arresting officer in that case concerning Shankman's bad attitude toward...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mon v. City of New York
...negligent hiring of Shankman. In the City's appeal from a unanimous affirmance of the judgment at the Appellate Division, 163 A.D.2d 212, 557 N.Y.S.2d 925, the principal question is whether the City has governmental immunity from liability for negligence in We hold that (1) the duties and f......
-
Farkas v. City of New York
...Misc.2d 32, 222 N.Y.S.2d 867; see also, Willinger v. City of New Rochelle, 212 A.D.2d 526, 622 N.Y.S.2d 321; cf., Mon v. City of New York, 163 A.D.2d 212, 557 N.Y.S.2d 925, mod. 78 N.Y.2d 309, 574 N.Y.S.2d 529, 579 N.E.2d 689). The jury's acceptance of the contrary evidence propounded by th......
-
Mon v. City of New York
...Andre MON v. CITY OF NEW YORK. Supreme Court of New York, Appellate Division, First Department. Sept. 25, 1990 Prior report: App.Div., 557 N.Y.S.2d 925. Leave to appeal to Court of Appeals granted, as KUPFERMAN, J.P., and MILONAS, ELLERIN, WALLACH and RUBIN, JJ., concur. ...