The motion court properly denied defendant Suska Plumbing's motion for summary judgment to dismiss the negligent hiring claim, since there were numerous issues of fact concerning whether Suska breached a duty to plaintiff by failing to check references, whether a check of references would have created a duty of further inquiry or supervision, and as to whether the attack on plaintiff by Suska's employee was foreseeable ( see, Brandt v. Elghanayan, 242 A.D.2d 240; Corbally v. Sikras Realty Co., 161 A.D.2d 107; compare, Kirkman v. Astoria Gen. Hosp., 204 A.D.2d 401, lv denied 84 N.Y.2d 811; see also, Correction Law §§ 752, 753). The record fails to support Suska Plumbing's contentions concerning the relationship between the employee's employment and his presence, alone, in plaintiff's apartment. We have received Suska's remaining arguments and find them to be without merit.
Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Ellerin, Tom and Andrias, JJ.