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
PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL EXPLAINED THAT THE RETURN DATE FOR DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION WAS MISCALEDARED AS THE DATE FOR SUBMISSION OF OPPOSITION PAPERS; IT WAS AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION TO DENY PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO VACATE THE SUMMARY JUDGMENT ORDER (SECOND DEPT).
LIFE ESTATES IN A CONDOMINIUM AND COOPERATIVE APARTMENT DID NOT DIMINISH VALUE OF THE PROPERTIES FOR ESTATE TAX PURPOSES.
A RESTITUTION HEARING IS REQUIRED WHEN (1) THE DEFENDANT REQUESTS IT, AND (2) WHEN THE EVIDENCE OF THE AMOUNT IS INSUFFICIENT (SECOND DEPT). ​
BECAUSE THE STATE, NOT THE TOWN, OWNS THE LAND BENEATH THE LAKE, THE TOWN DID NOT HAVE JURISDICTION TO BRING CRIMINAL CHARGES BASED UPON THE CONSTRUCTION OF DOCKS; THE CRIMINAL MATTER WAS DISMISSED ON THAT GROUND AND PLAINTIFFS BROUGHT A MALICIOUS PROSECUTION ACTION; BECAUSE THE CRIMINAL MATTER WAS TERMINATED IN PLAINTIFFS’ FAVOR THE MALICIOUS PROSECUTION ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).
Complaint Did Not State a Cause of Action Against City for Negligent Failure to Provide Emergency Medical Services—No “Special Relationship” Alleged
THE EXCEPTION TO THE FAULTY WORKMANSHIP EXCLUSION IN THE FIRE INSURANCE POLICY APPLIED TO PRESERVE COVERAGE FOR ENSUING LOSS (SECOND DEPT).
10-Year-Old Plaintiff’s Testimony Should Have Been Considered—No Need for Hearing to Determine Testimonial Capacity
Leave to File Late Notice of Claim Should Have Been 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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Supreme Court Used the Wrong Standards When It Denied Petitioner’s Request... Sale of Notes Was Champertous—Seller Subcontracted Out Its Litigation...