You are here: / / Question of Fact Whether Property Owners Owed a Duty to Protect Plaintiff...

Question of Fact Whether Property Owners Owed a Duty to Protect Plaintiff from an Assault During a Fair on the Premises

he Second Department determined there was a question of fact whether the defendants, who held a fair on their premises, were liable to plaintiff who was attacked by two teenage boys during the fair. There was evidence a security guard had been notified that a fight was about to break out and did nothing:

“While landowners in general have a duty to act in a reasonable manner to prevent harm to those on their property, an owner’s duty to control the conduct of persons on its premises arises only when it has the opportunity to control such persons and is reasonably aware of the need for such control” … . Thus, the owner of a public establishment has no duty to protect patrons against unforeseeable and unexpected assaults … .

Here, the church defendants established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting evidence which demonstrated that the infant plaintiff’s injuries resulted from an unexpected and unforeseeable assault … . However, in opposition, the plaintiffs raised a triable issue of fact as to whether the assault of the infant plaintiff was unexpected and unforeseeable. The plaintiffs presented a transcript of the deposition testimony of the infant plaintiff’s girlfriend, who explained that, approximately 30 minutes before the subject incident, she spoke to a security guard at the fair and advised him that there was a “confrontation” and that it was “getting worse.” Bisignano v Raabe, 2015 NY Slip Op 04081, 2nd Dept 5-13-15

 

You might also like
JUDGE’S SUA SPONTE DISMSSAL OF THE COMPLAINT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION DEPRIVED PLAINTIFF OF NOTICE AND A CHANCE TO BE HEARD, A VIOLATION OF DUE PROCESS (SECOND DEPT).
THE WAIVER OF APPEAL WAS INVALID, THE STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS FOR THE ORDER OF PROTECTION ISSUED AT SENTENCING WERE NOT MET (SECOND DEPT).
JUDGE WAS BIASED AGAINST MOTHER WHO SOUGHT TO PREVENT THE IMMUNIZATION OF HER CHILDREN FOR RELIGIOUS REASONS.
IF THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS RUNS OUT ON A SATURDAY, PLAINTIFF HAS UNTIL THE FOLLOWING MONDAY TO COMMENCE THE ACTION (SECOND DEPT).
THE DEPRAVED-INDIFFERENCE ELEMENT OF THE CHARGED OFFENSES WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE; ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT’S ATTEMPTS TO CARE FOR BURNS ON THE CHILD’S LEGS WERE GROSSLY INADEQUATE, THOSE MEASURES DID NOT SUPPORT A FINDING DEFENDANT DID NOT CARE AT ALL ABOUT THE CONDITION OF THE CHILD (SECOND DEPT).
“Single Motion Rule” Barred Motions to Dismiss Pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)
BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE PROVISIONS OF REAL PROPERTY ACTIONS AND PROCEEDINGS LAW (RPAPL) 1304, BANK’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
In a Prohibition Proceeding Brought Under Article 78, Trial Judge’s Mistrial Order Deemed Improper, Retrial Precluded​

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Corporate Officer May Be Personally Liable for Torts Committed in the Performance... Criteria for Setting Aside a Verdict as Against the Weight of the Evidence ...