Bray v Mullins

Holding The court affirmed summary judgment for the defendants, holding that the employer was not vicariously liable for the employee’s intentional torts because the acts were not within the scope of employment. Additionally, the court found no liability for false arrest because the defendant merely reported the incident to police without actively inducing the prosecution.

The court’s words

an employer . . . may be held vicariously liable for torts, including intentional torts, committed by employees acting within the scope of their employment

2026 NY Slip Op 04607, at the official text

if an employee for purposes of [their] own departs from the line of . . . duty so that for the time being [their] acts constitute an abandonment of . . . service, the [employer] is not liable

2026 NY Slip Op 04607, at the official text

a civilian will not be held liable for false arrest . . . if he or she merely seek[s] police assistance or furnish[es] information to law enforcement authorities

2026 NY Slip Op 04607, at the official text