Can You Sue an Employer in New York for an Employee’s Actions?

Last updated July 14, 2026. Reading time about 9 minutes.

Can you sue an employer in New York when its employee injures you? Yes, in three situations. New York courts recognize negligent hiring, negligent supervision, and negligent retention claims. Each asks one question: Did the employer know, or should it have known, that the employee posed a risk?

Not legal advice: This page provides general legal information for New York. Every case is different. Speak with a qualified attorney about your specific situation.

Attorney credentials: Salvatore Aspromonte is the firm’s managing partner. His firm profile lists bar admissions in New York, Florida, the Supreme Court of the United States, and the U.S. District Courts for the Eastern and Southern Districts of New York.

Dansker & Aspromonte Associates LLP is a Manhattan personal injury firm that has represented injured New Yorkers for more than three decades. The firm has recovered multimillion-dollar results in cases involving employer and institutional negligence, including supervision failures by schools and property owners. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

What Negligent Hiring, Negligent Supervision, and Negligent Retention Mean in New York

New York recognizes three separate claims against employers whose workers harm others. Each claim targets a different failure point in the employment timeline. These are negligence claims against the employer directly, separate from any claim against the worker who caused the harm. Screening failures support negligent hiring. Oversight failures support negligent supervision. Keeping a known risk on staff supports negligent retention.

• Negligent hiring means an employer hired someone it knew or should have known was unfit for the position.
• Negligent supervision means an employer failed to monitor an employee with known dangerous tendencies.
• Negligent retention means an employer kept an employee after learning the employee posed a risk.

The retention claim is the one most people miss. An employer can make a careful hire, receive complaints about the worker months later, ignore them, and still be liable when that worker hurts someone.

These claims appear most often where workers hold positions of trust or access. Common settings include nursing home care and child care, along with building services, security, transportation, and home repair. Our New York negligent hiring attorneys handle all three claim types.

When Is an Employer Liable for an Employee’s Actions in New York?

An employer is legally responsible for employee negligence committed within the scope of employment. That rule is called vicarious liability, also known as respondeat superior, as explained by the Legal Information Institute at Cornell Law School. The boundary that decides everything is whether the employee was doing their job when the harm occurred. A delivery driver who causes a crash on a route is one case. A doorman who attacks a visitor is a very different one.

Many legal websites state that employers are responsible for whatever their employees do, then present negligent hiring as an extension of that rule. The claim persists because vicarious liability is real and easy to overstate. New York courts generally treat the two theories as alternatives. When the employee acted within the scope of employment, courts usually dismiss negligent hiring, retention, supervision, or training claims because the employer already answers for the employee’s conduct. An exception may apply when the plaintiff seeks punitive damages from the employer based on alleged gross negligence in hiring or retention. The Appellate Division reaffirmed that rule in Hidalgo v. Darakchiev, citing Talavera v. Arbit.

Negligent hiring, supervision, and retention do their real work when the act falls outside the scope of employment. Assault is the clearest example. An employee who attacks a customer is almost never doing their job. If an employee assaulted you, negligent hiring or retention is usually the claim that reaches the employer. Attacks that happen because a business failed to protect its property can also support a separate negligent security claim against the property owner.

How Do You Prove a Negligent Hiring or Supervision Claim?

A negligent hiring claim requires proof that the employer knew or should have known of the employee’s propensity for the conduct that caused the injury. For negligent supervision and retention, the New York Court of Appeals requires allegations that the employer had actual or constructive knowledge of that propensity, had the ability and opportunity to control the employee, and that the employee committed the tort on the employer’s premises or used property or resources available only through employment. See Moore Charitable Foundation v. PJT Partners, Inc.. The Court of Appeals applied the same framework in Nellenback v. Madison County. A leading negligent-retention example is Haddock v. City of New York, where the state’s highest court held New York City liable after a parks worker with a violent criminal record attacked a child and the City had failed to follow its own personnel procedures.

A successful claim generally proves four things:

• The person who hurt you worked for the employer
• The employer knew or should have known the employee posed a risk of this type of conduct
• The employer failed to act on that knowledge
• That failure caused your injury

Evidence that proves employer knowledge includes:

• Personnel files and background check records
• Prior complaints from customers or co-workers
• Disciplinary records and incident reports
• Internal emails and messages
• Witness statements

Both the employer and the employee can be named in the same lawsuit. Medical settings raise related but separate issues. Harm caused by unqualified medical staff may involve medical malpractice, a different claim type with its own rules.

Do New York Employers Have to Run Background Checks?

New York employers have no general duty to run criminal background checks on every applicant. Courts focus on what the employer knew or reasonably should have investigated under the circumstances. In Yeboah v. Snapple, Inc., the First Department held that an employer is not automatically required to investigate whether an applicant has prior convictions. In T.W. v. City of New York, the court held that a duty to investigate arises when the employer knows facts that would lead a reasonably prudent person to investigate. The First Department applied that standard again in Darbeau v. 136 W. 3rd St., LLC.

Two more New York rules shape these cases. New York Correction Law Article 23-A limits when employers may reject applicants over past convictions, so employers must weigh those obligations against negligent hiring exposure. Courts also evaluate remoteness and foreseeability based on the facts of each case. In Ford v. Gildin, the First Department found that a manslaughter conviction occurring 27 years before the later abuse was too remote to establish foreseeability on that record.

The practical point is that a claim does not depend on proving the employer skipped a background check. You need to show the employer ignored what it knew or what it reasonably should have investigated given the job. A company giving a worker keys to homes, access to patients, or authority over children may be expected to investigate more closely.

What Compensation Can You Recover?

New York law allows an injured person to recover fair and reasonable money damages from a negligent employer. The value of a claim depends on the severity of the injury and the strength of the proof.

Recoverable damages generally include:

• Current and future medical bills
• Rehabilitation and long-term care costs
• Lost wages and reduced future earnings
• Pain and suffering
• Out-of-pocket expenses for equipment, medication, and transportation
• Funeral costs and loss of guidance in wrongful death cases

Two results from our own cases show how these claims work. A 16-year-old student was run over by a bus after his school failed to follow its own rule requiring staff to escort him to boarding. Both the Board of Education and the transit authority were found responsible, and the case resolved for $1.1 million. Past results do not guarantee future outcomes. In another case, a Manhattan tavern was held responsible for a crash after its staff kept serving a visibly drunk patron who then drove, and a jury returned a $2.2 million verdict. Past results do not guarantee future outcomes. Even a slip and fall caused by an untrained or unsupervised worker can justify a claim when the injuries are serious.

Time Limits and Who Can Bring These Claims

Strict filing deadlines apply to every claim on this page, and they vary by claim type and defendant. Claims involving government entities, city agencies, or public schools may have separate notice and filing requirements. Contact a qualified attorney immediately to determine which deadlines apply to your case. Waiting can cost evidence and may prevent an otherwise valid claim.

These claims belong to customers, visitors, patients, tenants, and members of the public injured by someone else’s employee. The rules differ for workers hurt on their own job. An employee injured by a co-worker generally goes through workers’ compensation rather than a lawsuit against their own employer. If you were hurt at work by someone who was not a co-worker, such as a vendor or contractor, a third party claim may still be available.

Frequently Asked Questions

These answers address common questions about employer negligence claims under New York law.

Can I sue an employer for negligent hiring in New York?

Yes. New York law lets you sue an employer that hired someone it knew or should have known was unfit for the job. You must show the employer’s poor hiring decision led to your injury. These claims are common in security, caregiving, transportation, and building service settings.

What is negligent supervision in New York?

Negligent supervision means an employer failed to monitor or control an employee despite actual or constructive notice of the relevant risk. The claim generally requires that the employer had the ability and opportunity to control the employee and that the tort occurred on the employer’s premises or used property or resources available only through employment. Ignored complaints and skipped oversight may help prove notice and failure to act.

Is an employer liable if an employee assaults you?

Potentially. A negligent hiring or negligent retention claim may apply because assault usually falls outside the scope of employment. The employer may still be responsible if it knew or should have known the employee posed a danger and failed to act.

What is negligent retention?

Negligent retention means an employer kept an employee after learning the employee posed a risk to others. Proof often includes prior complaints, incident reports, or discipline records the employer ignored. It differs from negligent hiring because the employer’s knowledge arrived after the hire, not before it.

What evidence proves a negligent hiring claim?

Useful evidence includes personnel files, background check records, prior complaints, disciplinary history, internal emails, and witness statements. The goal is showing what the employer knew about the employee and when. New York courts focus on whether known facts would have prompted a reasonable employer to act.

Do New York employers have to run criminal background checks?

No general duty exists in New York. Courts do not fault employers for skipping a criminal check on every applicant. A duty to investigate arises when known facts raise red flags about the applicant. Jobs involving children, patients, or home access often call for closer screening.

What is the difference between vicarious liability and negligent hiring?

Vicarious liability makes an employer answer for employee negligence committed within the scope of employment. Negligent hiring targets the employer’s own carelessness in choosing or keeping a dangerous worker. When the employee was doing their job, courts usually apply vicarious liability and dismiss the negligent hiring claim.

How long do I have to file a claim against an employer in New York?

Filing deadlines vary by claim type and defendant. Claims involving government entities may have separate notice and filing requirements. Missing a deadline can end the case. Contact a qualified attorney immediately after the injury to determine the deadline that applies.

Talk to a New York Employer Negligence Lawyer

The strength of these cases often turns on employment records you cannot obtain without formal legal process. Dansker & Aspromonte Associates LLP can seek personnel files, complaint histories, and screening records and evaluate what they show about the employer’s knowledge. The consultation is free. You pay no attorney fees unless the firm recovers money for you. Court costs and disbursements may apply regardless of outcome. Consult the attorney for details.

Sources and Verification

The following sources support the legal framework discussed on this page.

• Legal Information Institute, Cornell Law School. (n.d.). Respondeat superior. Accessed July 14, 2026. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/respondeat_superior
• New York State Senate. (n.d.). Correction Law Article 23-A, Licensure and employment of persons previously convicted of one or more criminal offenses. Accessed July 14, 2026. https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/COR/A23-A
• New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services. (n.d.). Correction Law Article 23-A. Accessed July 14, 2026. https://www.criminaljustice.ny.gov/pio/correction-law-article-23a.pdf
• Haddock v. City of New York, 75 N.Y.2d 478 (N.Y. 1990). Accessed July 14, 2026. https://case-law.vlex.com/vid/haddock-v-city-of-895243661
• Dansker & Aspromonte Associates LLP. Salvatore Aspromonte attorney profile and bar admissions. Accessed July 14, 2026. https://www.dandalaw.com/about/attorneys/salvatore-aspromonte/
• Moore Charitable Foundation v. PJT Partners, Inc., 40 N.Y.3d 150 (2023).
• Nellenback v. Madison County, 44 N.Y.3d 340 (2025).
• Hidalgo v. Darakchiev, 2026 N.Y. Slip Op. 04183 (2d Dep’t July 1, 2026).
• Darbeau v. 136 W. 3rd St., LLC, 226 A.D.3d 511 (1st Dep’t 2024).
• Yeboah v. Snapple, Inc., 286 A.D.2d 204 (1st Dep’t 2001).
• T.W. v. City of New York, 286 A.D.2d 243 (1st Dep’t 2001).
• Sheila C. v. Povich, 11 A.D.3d 120 (1st Dep’t 2004).
• Talavera v. Arbit, 18 A.D.3d 738 (2d Dep’t 2005).
• Ford v. Gildin, 200 A.D.2d 224 (1st Dep’t 1994).

This content is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction. Consult a qualified attorney for advice specific to your situation. Page reviewed July 14, 2026.