the District’s sexual harassment policy, and how to handle sexual harassment complaints; and (2) the adequacy of the defendants’ response to plaintiffs complaints of sexual harassment. Accordingly, summary judgment of plaintiffs negligent training and supervision claim must be denied. 2. Vicarious liability “The doctrine of respondeat superi- or renders an employer vicariously liable for torts committed by an employee acting within the scope of the employment.” Judith M. v. Sisters of Charity Hosp., 93 N.Y.2d 932, 933, 715 N.E.2d 95, 96, 693 N.Y.S.2d 67, 68 (1999); Riviello v. Waldron, 47 N.Y.2d 297, 302, 391 N.E.2d 1278, 1281, 418 N.Y.S.2d 300, 302 (1979). School districts may be held vicariously liable for torts committed by an employee. Murray v. Water Y.S.2d 347, 348 (3d Dep’t 1994)(<HOLDING>). Further, for respondeat superior to attach,
holding that the district was not liable under respondeat superior for a teachers sexual assault of a student even though it occurred on school grounds and during school hours because the criminal misconduct was not within the scope of the teachers employment holding that a school district owed the highest degree of care to a student on a school bus such that the district could be liable for the sexual abuse of the student by the school bus driver holding the tlo standard governs school searches when school resource officers  who although employed by the local police department are primarily responsible to the school district  are acting in conjunction with school officials holding that a school district was not liable for sexual molestation of plaintiffs daughter by a teacher even though the acts occurred on school property and during school hours holding that intraconspiracy doctrine applied to plaintiffs claims against school board teacher school principal and district superintendent