Nunez v. Yonkers Racing Corp.

2023 NY Slip Op 03701

Felix Nunez, respondent, v. Yonkers Racing Corp., appellant, et al., defendant.

No. 2021-03888, Index No. 56201/18

Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

July 5, 2023

Bleakley Platt & Schmidt, LLP, White Plains, NY (Peter F Harrington of counsel), for appellant.

Subin Associates, LLP (Pollack, Pollack, Isaac & DeCicco, LLP New York, NY [Brian J. Isaac and Michael H. Zhu], of counsel), for respondent.

HECTOR D. LASALLE, P.J., BETSY BARROS, VALERIE BRATHWAITE NELSON ROBERT J. MILLER, JJ.

DECISION & ORDER

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for false arrest, the defendant Yonkers Racing Corp. appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Joan B. Lefkowitz, J.), dated May 10, 2021. The order denied that defendant's motion for leave to renew those branches of its prior motion which were for summary judgment dismissing the causes of action alleging false arrest and negligent hiring, training, supervision, and retention insofar as asserted against it, which were denied in an order of the same court dated July 24, 2019.

ORDERED that order dated May 10, 2021, is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff commenced this action against the defendant Yonkers Racing Corp. (hereinafter the defendant) and an unnamed security guard, alleging, inter alia, false arrest and negligent hiring, training, retention, and supervision. The plaintiff alleges, inter alia, that on January 30, 2014, a security officer employed by the defendant falsely arrested him while using excessive force causing him to sustain personal injuries. The defendant interposed an answer denying the material allegations in the complaint and asserting various affirmative defenses.

The defendant moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it. In an order dated July 24 2019, the Supreme Court, inter alia, denied those branches of the motion which were for summary judgment dismissing the causes of action alleging false arrest and negligent hiring, training, supervision, and retention insofar as asserted against it. The defendant then moved for leave to renew those branches of its prior motion which were for summary judgment dismissing the causes of action alleging false arrest and negligent hiring, training, supervision, and retention insofar as asserted against it. By order dated August 31, 2020, the court denied the motion. Thereafter, the defendant again moved for leave to renew those branches of its prior motion which were for summary judgment dismissing the causes of action alleging false arrest and negligent hiring, training, supervision, and retention insofar as...