![Linton Mann III and William T. Russell Jr.](http://images.law.com/contrib/content/uploads/sites/389/2021/07/Russell-Mann-767x633.jpg)
Court of Appeals Considers Scope of Employer's Duty of Supervision Over Employee
In Moore Charitable Foundation v. PJT Partners, the Court of Appeals considered the scope of an employer's duty of supervision over its employee and whether a complaint sufficiently alleged that an employer was on notice of its employee's propensity to commit fraud before the employee caused injury to the plaintiff. I
July 18, 2023 at 12:44 PM
7 minute read
In Moore Charitable Foundation v. PJT Partners, the Court of Appeals considered the scope of an employer's duty of supervision over its employee and whether a complaint sufficiently alleged that an employer was on notice of its employee's propensity to commit fraud before the employee caused injury to the plaintiff. In a majority decision written by Judge Anthony Cannataro and joined by Chief Judge Wilson and Judges Rivera, Troutman and Nancy E. Smith of the Fourth Department (sitting by designation), the court reversed the Appellate Division, First Department and held that the parties to whom employers owe a duty of supervision include more than just the employer's actual customers and that the plaintiffs adequately alleged a cause of action for negligent supervision and retention where the plaintiff was defrauded by an employee of the defendants while using his work email address and documents obtained in connection with his employment.
According to the complaint, the defendant investment bank and one of its divisions hired an employee to represent private equity fund managers interested in offering liquidity to their investors. The employee was initially successful and brought in a substantial amount of work for the defendants, but over time he allegedly engaged in "dangerous and destructive behaviors" while at work, including excessive high-risk trading from personal accounts, obsessively monitoring the performance of his investments, and "drinking to excess." In 2014, the employee closed a deal earning the defendants a deal fee of $8.1 million. The employee allegedly intercepted the payment and diverted it to his own personal funds, which he later lost in connection with personal investments. When the defendants inquired about the missing payment, the employee lied and claimed that no payment would be received until after a "stub closing" was complete. The complaint asserts that the employee's explanation was implausible and transparently false for a variety of reasons but that the defendants failed to challenge the employee's explanation about the delayed payment at that time.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All![Midlevel Appellate Court Reinstates New York's Voting Rights Act Midlevel Appellate Court Reinstates New York's Voting Rights Act](https://images.law.com/cdn-cgi/image/format=auto,fit=contain/https://k2-prod-alm.s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/brightspot/20/d3/7aa10f3f44c79a0ef2f6e31ab868/deh-0194-767x633.jpg)
Midlevel Appellate Court Reinstates New York's Voting Rights Act
![Democracy in Focus: New York State Court of Appeals Year in Review Democracy in Focus: New York State Court of Appeals Year in Review](https://images.law.com/cdn-cgi/image/format=auto,fit=contain/https://k2-prod-alm.s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/brightspot/10/b1/43b5911b4d12ace30817967bb614/harry-black-767x633.jpg)
![Standing Spat: Split 2nd Circuit Lets Challenge to Pfizer Diversity Program Proceed Standing Spat: Split 2nd Circuit Lets Challenge to Pfizer Diversity Program Proceed](https://images.law.com/cdn-cgi/image/format=auto,fit=contain/https://images.law.com/nationallawjournal/contrib/content/uploads/sites/389/2024/06/2nd-Circuit-4-767x633.jpg)
Standing Spat: Split 2nd Circuit Lets Challenge to Pfizer Diversity Program Proceed
Law Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1Varsity Brands Lures Aboard Keurig Dr. Pepper Legal Chief
- 2Federal Judge Warns of 'Serious Sanctions' on FDIC Over Document Retention
- 3Meet the Former NFL Player Now Back at Vinson & Elkins
- 4Inside Track: Cooley's Modest Proposal to Make Executives Safer
- 5Justified Termination Does Not Bar Associate Attorney From Unemployment Benefits, State Appellate Court Rules
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250