City Sch. Dist., 130 A.D.2d 830, 515 N.Y.S.2d 150, 151 (3d Dep’t 1987). “An act falls within the scope of an employee’s duties when the employee is ‘doing his master’s work, no matter how irregularly, or with what disregard of instructions.’ ” Id. at 831, 515 N.Y.S.2d 150, 152 (quoting Jones v. Weigand, 134 A.D. 644, 645, 119 N.Y.S. 441, 443 (2d Dep’t 1909)). However, if an employee commits a tort for “personal motives unrelated to the furtherance of the employer’s business,” there is no respondeat superior liability. Island Associated Coop. v. Hartmann, 118 A.D.2d 830, 831, 500 N.Y.S.2d 315, 316 (2d Dep’t 1986); Mataxas v. North Shore Univ. Hosp., 211 A.D.2d 762, 763, 621 N.Y.S.2d 683, 684 (2d Dep’t 1995) see, e.g., Judith M., 93 N.Y.2d at 933, 715 N.E.2d at 96, 693 N.Y.S.2d at 68 (<HOLDING>); Mary KK v. Jack LL, 203 A.D.2d 840, 841, 611
holding that a hospital was not vicariously liable for sexual abuse by an orderly holding defendants prior conviction for assault related to sexual abuse of a minor even though it did not require an act of sexual abuse because it required intent to commit sexual abuse  and such a mens rea demonstrate the offense was one relating to sexual abuse holding that a city could not be held vicariously liable for the act of a magistrate who was immune from liability holding that because the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding the expert report adequate as to the vicarious liability claim against the hospital based on the actions of the doctors plaintiffs suit against the hospital including her claim that the hospital was vicariously hable for the actions of its nurses could proceed holding insurer vicariously liable for defense counsels negligent defense of a medical malpractice claim