is not applicable to impose liability on the defendants.” Id. (citations omitted). In State Farm Ins. Co., the plaintiff brought suit against the defendant for negligence and breach of contract after the defendant’s employee, a car attendant, stole the plaintiffs car. See State Farm Ins. Co., 18 A.D.3d at 859, 796 N.Y.S.2d 665. Dismissing all but the breach of bailment contract claims, the Appellate Division held that the defendant established its “entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the plaintiffs claim under the theory of respondeat superior by producing evidence that theft of the subject car ..., by one of the defendant’s employees, was outside the scope of that employee’s duties as a car attendant.” ell, 203 A.D.2d 241, 242, 609 N.Y.S.2d 344 (2d Dep’t 1994) (<HOLDING>). 3. Fraud Plaintiffs fraud claim against
holding that the doctrine of respondeat superior in maryland allows an employer to be held vicariously liable for the tortious conduct of its employee when that employee was acting within the scope of the employment relationship citations omitted holding that a municipality cannot be liable on a respondeat superior theory holding that municipality may not be held liable under  1983 upon theory of respondeat superior holding that a party can be held liable for securities fraud on an agency or a respondeat superior theory holding that the criminal acts committed by the defendants employees were outside of the scope of their employment and in no way advanced the interests of the defendant so that the defendant could not be held liable under a theory of respondeat superior citations omitted