You are here: / / CRIMINAL ASSAULT BY ONE HOCKEY GAME SPECTATOR AGAINST ANOTHER NOT FORESEEABLE;...

CRIMINAL ASSAULT BY ONE HOCKEY GAME SPECTATOR AGAINST ANOTHER NOT FORESEEABLE; YOUTH HOCKEY ASSOCIATION NOT NEGLIGENT.

The Court of Appeals determined defendant youth hockey association could not be held liable for an assault by one spectator on another spectator after the hockey game:

On this record, the criminal assault on plaintiff was not a reasonably foreseeable result of any failure to take preventive measures. While defendant owed a duty to protect spectators from foreseeable criminal conduct, the scope of that duty is defined by the likelihood that the aggressive behavior would lead to a criminal assault. Defendant took measures to address player and spectator conduct. The behavior of the fans, however inappropriate, certainly did not create the risk that failure to eject any specific spectator would result in a criminal assault, particularly since such an assault had never happened before … .

Plaintiff argues that defendant’s failure to enforce the Zero-Tolerance policy by ejecting spectators constitutes independent evidence of negligence. The policy provides that “the on-ice official” will remove spectators using “obscene, racial or vulgar language” from the game. However, the “[v]iolation of a[n] [organization]’s internal rules is not negligence in and of itself” … , and where an internal policy exceeds “the standard of ordinary care,” it “cannot serve as a basis for imposing liability” … . Pink v Rome Youth Hockey Assn., Inc., 2016 NY Slip Op 06946, CtApp 10-25-16

 

NEGLIGENCE (CRIMINAL ASSAULT BY ONE HOCKEY GAME SPECTATOR AGAINST ANOTHER NOT FORESEEABLE; YOUTH HOCKEY ASSOCIATION NOT NEGLIGEN/ASSAULT (NEGLIGENCE, CRIMINAL ASSAULT BY ONE HOCKEY GAME SPECTATOR AGAINST ANOTHER NOT FORESEEABLE; YOUTH HOCKEY ASSOCIATION NOT NEGLIGENT)/SPECTATORS (HOCKEY GAME, (CRIMINAL ASSAULT BY ONE HOCKEY GAME SPECTATOR AGAINST ANOTHER NOT FORESEEABLE; YOUTH HOCKEY ASSOCIATION NOT NEGLIGENT)

You might also like
DEFENDANT, A NONCITIZEN, WAS TOLD DURING HIS PLEA COLLOQUY THAT HE DID NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO A JURY TRIAL ON THE DEPORTATION-ELIGIBLE B MISDEMEANOR; WHILE THE LEAVE APPLICATION WAS PENDING THE LAW WAS CHANGED TO AFFORD A PERSON IN DEFENDANT’S POSITION THE RIGHT TO A JURY TRIAL; THE MAJORITY UPHELD THE GUILTY PLEA; THE DISSENT ARGUED THE PLEA SHOULD NOT STAND (CT APP).
IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION DEFENDANT DEBTOR ENTERED A MORTGAGE MODIFICATION AGREEMENT WHICH CALLED FOR THREE PAYMENTS; DEFENDANT DEBTOR MADE FOUR ADDITIONAL PAYMENTS IN AMOUNTS HIGHER THAN CALLED FOR IN THE MORTGAGE; THE PAYMENTS AMOUNTED TO AN ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF THE MORTGAGE DEBT WHICH STARTED THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR FORECLOSURE ON THE DATE OF THE LAST PAYMENT (CT APP). ​
Proof Sufficient to Support Unlawful Surveillance Conviction/Defendant Was Standing on the Front Door Step Videotaping Woman Inside
CONVICTION AFFIRMED, THREE-JUDGE DISSENT ARGUED THE APPELLATE DIVISION EXCEEDED ITS AUTHORITY BY AFFIRMING ON A SEARCH-RELATED GROUND THAT WAS NOT RULED ON BY SUPREME COURT (CT APP).
POLICE OFFICER HAD REASONABLE GROUNDS TO PULL OVER PETITIONER’S CAR AFTER THE CAR CROSSED THE FOG LINE WITH A BLINKER ON AND THEN MOVED BACK INTO THE LANE, REVOCATION OF DRIVER’S LICENSE FOR FAILURE TO SUBMIT TO A CHEMICAL TEST AFFIRMED (CT APP).
POLICE LOST A VIDEO WHICH WAS LIKELY TO BE OF MATERIAL IMPORTANCE, FAILURE TO GIVE THE ADVERSE INFERENCE CHARGE TO THE JURY WAS (HARMLESS) ERROR.
Petitioner, Who Was Required to Work in the “Work Experience Program [WEP]” to Receive Public Assistance, Was an “Employee” Entitled to Minimum Wage Under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)
IN LAWSUITS AGAINST THE GOLF-COURSE OWNERS, A GOLFER COMPETING IN A TOURNAMENT ASSUMED THE RISK OF BEING STRUCK BY A GOLF BALL WHILE RIDIING IN A GOLF CART ON THE COURSE, BUT A GOLFER DRIVING A GOLF CART TO HER CAR IN THE COURSE PARKING LOT DID NOT ASSUME THE RISK OF A COLLISION WITH A CAR EXITING THE PARKING LOT (CT APP).

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

PLAINTIFF SUING SHERIFF FOR FAILURE TO KEEP HIM SAFE FROM ASSAULT IN JAIL (1)... YOGA INSTRUCTORS NOT EMPLOYEES.