You are here: / / Question of Fact Whether Movie Theater Breached Its Duty to Protect Patrons...

Question of Fact Whether Movie Theater Breached Its Duty to Protect Patrons from Assault

The Second Department determined defendant movie theater’s motion for summary judgment was properly denied.  Plaintiffs were assaulted at the theater.  Depositions revealed there had been four or five similar incidents at the theater and one of the plaintiffs screamed for help throughout the 15-to-20-minute assault:

A property owner must act in a reasonable manner to prevent harm to those on its premises, which includes a duty to control the conduct of persons on its premises when it has the opportunity to control such conduct, and is reasonably aware of the need to do so … . However, “the owner of a public establishment has no duty to protect patrons against unforeseeable and unexpected assaults” … . Solomon v National Amusements, Inc., 2015 NY Slip Op 04306, 2nd Dept 5-20-15

 

You might also like
DOCTRINE OF EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL APPLIED TO DENY NYC TRANSIT AUTHORITY’S MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO SERVE A NOTICE OF CLAIM; THE NOTICE HAD BEEN TIMELY SERVED ON THE METROPOLITAN TRANSIT AUTHORITY AND A 50-h HEARING HAD BEEN HELD.
THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO INCLUDE DEFENDANT IN THE ORIGINAL FORECLOSURE PROCEEDING WAS THE RESULT OF “WILFUL NEGLECT;” THEREFORE, PURSUANT TO RPAPL 1523, DEFENDANT’S “WILFUL-NEGLECT” AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE IN THIS REFORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).
Motion for Resentencing Under CPL 440.46 (Drug Reform Law) Properly Denied
DEFENDANTS WERE NOT SERVED WITH NOTICE OF THE FORECLOSURE SALE; THEIR MOTION TO VACATE THE FORECLOSURE SALE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
Refusal to Comply with Discovery Demand Supported Sanction of Dismissal of the Complaint
THE MOTIONS TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT AND JOIN AN ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; CRITERIA EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT). ​
ISSUE WAS NEVER JOINED, THEREFORE THE ACTION COULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE PURSUANT TO CPLR 3216 (SECOND DEPT).
TRIPPING OVER A GAP BETWEEN THE TOP STEP OF A STAIRCASE AND THE LANDING IS NOT A GRAVITY-RELATED INCIDENT COVERED BY LABOR LAW 240(1); RE: LABOR LAW 241(6), THE INDUSTRIAL CODE PROVISION REQUIRING COVERS OVER HAZARDOUS OPENINGS APPLIES ONLY TO OPENINGS A WORKER CAN COMPLETELLY FALL THROUGH (SECOND DEPT).

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

To Be Entitled to Summary Judgment on a Labor Law 200 Cause of Action, the Defendant... Installing, Pursuant to a Resolution, a Temporary Barrier to Address Traffic...