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
DEFENDANT’S DRIVING WHILE INTOXICATED AT HIGH SPEEDS AND IGNORING TRAFFIC LIGHTS, RESULTING IN AN INTERSECTION COLLISION WHICH KILLED THE OTHER DRIVER, SUPPORTED THE DEPRAVED INDIFFERENCE MURDER CONVICTION.
ALTHOUGH THE ATTORNEYS IN THIS LEGAL MALPRACTICE ACTION MISSED THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, THE COMPLAINT DID NOT ALLEGE SUFFICIENT FACTS TO DEMONSTRATE THE UNDERLYING LAWSUITS WOULD HAVE SUCCEEDED HAD THEY BEEN TIMELY BROUGHT (SECOND DEPT).
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE CONTINUOUS TREATMENT DOCTRINE APPLIED, SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED.
DEFENDANT FAILED TO AFFIRMATIVELY ADDRESS EVERY THEORY OF LIABILITY RAISED BY THE COMPLAINT, SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE.
Plaintiff Assumed the Risk of Stepping on Running Treadmill
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER LOCATION OF THE DOORWAY AND THE STAIRWAY PILLAR, WHICH WAS OPEN AND OBVIOUS, WAS AN INHERENTLY DANGEROUS CONDITION, DEFENDANT PROPERTY OWNER’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF RECEIVED THE FULL BENEFIT OF A LOAN AGREEMENT; THE DOCTRINE OF EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL PRECLUDED PLAINTIFF’S CLAIM THE LOAN AGREEMENT IS UNENFORCEABLE BECAUSE THE UNDERLYING RECORDED MORTGAGE DID NOT BEAR HIS SIGNATURE (SECOND DEPT).
HEARSAY ALONE CANNOT DEFEAT SUMMARY JUDGMENT, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS DOG-BITE CASE PROPERLY GRANTED.

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...