You are here: / / QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER THE OWNER OF A DOMESTIC VIOLENCE SHELTER AND...
,

QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER THE OWNER OF A DOMESTIC VIOLENCE SHELTER AND THE SECURITY COMPANY HIRED BY THE SHELTER WERE LIABLE FOR THE SHOOTING OF A CHILD JUST OUTSIDE THE GATE OF THE SHELTER, THE CHILD WAS AN INTENDED BENEFICIARY OF THE CONTRACT BETWEEN THE SHELTER AND THE SECURITY COMPANY (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Acosta, affirmed the denial of the defendants' motions for summary judgment in this third party assault case. The defendants are the owner-operators of a domestic violence shelter and the security company hired by the shelter. Plaintiff child, CB, was shot while CB and his father, Bobby B, were waiting for CB's mother to come down to the gate to accompany CB back to where she and CB were residing in the shelter. Bobby B had asked the guards to let the child in because Bobby B had been followed by several men. The child was not let in. The guards called CB's mother a couple of times telling her the child was waiting. One of the men who followed Bobby B approached with a gun and demanded Bobby B's jacket. In a struggle the gun discharged striking and paralyzing CB:

With respect to the common-law duty, landowners have “a duty to exercise reasonable care in maintaining [their] . . . property in a reasonably safe condition under the circumstances”…, which includes taking minimal safety precautions to protect against reasonably foreseeable criminal acts of third persons … .

We reject defendants' contention that they had no common-law duty to CB because the shooting took place outside the building, i.e., because CB was on the street side of the gate. Plaintiffs raised issues of fact as to whether the security booth, gate, and recessed area that CB was standing in were part of the shelter property and not the public sidewalk. However, even if CB was not standing on shelter property, it cannot be said that under any circumstance [the owner] owed no duty to him. …

​

Although the contract [with defendant security company] clearly provides that CB is an intended third-party beneficiary, there are issues of fact as to the benefits that CB is entitled to under the contract. It should be noted, however, that allowing a child in danger to enter the shelter does not appear to be in derogation of any rules prohibiting unarmed guards from intervening in an altercation. CB v Howard Sec., 2018 NY Slip Op 00087, First Dept 1-4-18

NEGLIGENCE (QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER THE OWNER OF A DOMESTIC VIOLENCE SHELTER AND THE SECURITY COMPANY HIRED BY THE SHELTER WERE LIABLE FOR THE SHOOTING OF A CHILD JUST OUTSIDE THE GATE OF THE SHELTER, THE CHILD WAS AN INTENDED BENEFICIARY OF THE CONTRACT BETWEEN THE SHELTER AND THE SECURITY COMPANY (FIRST DEPT))/ASSAULT BY THIRD PARTY (NEGLIGENCE, QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER THE OWNER OF A DOMESTIC VIOLENCE SHELTER AND THE SECURITY COMPANY HIRED BY THE SHELTER WERE LIABLE FOR THE SHOOTING OF A CHILD JUST OUTSIDE THE GATE OF THE SHELTER, THE CHILD WAS AN INTENDED BENEFICIARY OF THE CONTRACT BETWEEN THE SHELTER AND THE SECURITY COMPANY (FIRST DEPT))/CONTRACT LAW (THIRD-PARTY ASSAULT, SECURITY COMPANY, QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER THE OWNER OF A DOMESTIC VIOLENCE SHELTER AND THE SECURITY COMPANY HIRED BY THE SHELTER WERE LIABLE FOR THE SHOOTING OF A CHILD JUST OUTSIDE THE GATE OF THE SHELTER, THE CHILD WAS AN INTENDED BENEFICIARY OF THE CONTRACT BETWEEN THE SHELTER AND THE SECURITY COMPANY (FIRST DEPT))/THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARY (CONTRACT LAW, SECURITY COMPANY, QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER THE OWNER OF A DOMESTIC VIOLENCE SHELTER AND THE SECURITY COMPANY HIRED BY THE SHELTER WERE LIABLE FOR THE SHOOTING OF A CHILD JUST OUTSIDE THE GATE OF THE SHELTER, THE CHILD WAS AN INTENDED BENEFICIARY OF THE CONTRACT BETWEEN THE SHELTER AND THE SECURITY COMPANY (FIRST DEPT))

You might also like
No Sanction for Automatic Destruction of Video Recordings of Accident Scene after 21 Days—Counsels’ Original Request for Video Recording at the Time of the Accident Was Complied With—Counsel Subsequently Asked for Six Hours of Recording Prior to the Accident—By the Time of that Request the Videotape Had Been Automatically Destroyed
​ THE GUARDIAN OF THE PERSON AND PROPERTY OF THE INCAPACITATED PERSON (IP) AND THE ATTORNEY APPOINTED TO REPRESENT THE IP WERE PROPERLY REMOVED AND DISCHARGED WITHOUT A TESTIMONIAL HEARING, WHICH IS NOT REQUIRED BY THE MENTAL HYGIENE LAW; THE GUARDIAN AND THE ATTORNEY FAILED TO INVESTIGATE THE BONA FIDES OF THE IP’S MARRIAGE AND THE PRENUPTIAL AGREEMENT (FIRST DEPT). ​
TWO TO THREE FOOT FALL OF HEAVY STEEL PLATE WHICH WAS BEING HOISTED IS COVERED UNDER LABOR LAW 240 (1), HEIGHT DIFFERENTIAL NOT DE MINIMUS (FIRST DEPT).
EVEN THOUGH THE COOPERATIVE LANDLORD WON IN THE UNDERLYING LITIGATION AGAINST A SHAREHOLDER TENANT, THE LEASE PROVISION REQUIRING THE TENANT TO PAY ATTORNEY’S FEES REGARDLESS OF DEFAULT OR MERIT WAS UNENFORCEABLE AS UNCONSCIONABLE (FIRST DEPT). ​
Failure to Identify Notice Witness, Erroneous Missing Witness Charge and Erroneous Preclusion of Evidence Required Reversal.
PLAINTIFF STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR SEXUAL ORIENTATION-BASED DISCRIMINATION, DEFENDANT’S ARGUMENT THERE WAS A NON-DISCRIMINATORY REASON FOR ADVERSE ACTION SHOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED IN A CPLR 3211 (a)(7) MOTION TO DISMISS.
THE JUROR’S SIMULATION OF THE STABBING IN THE JURY ROOM DID NOT CONSTITUTE JUROR MISCONDUCT (FIRST DEPT).
DEFENDANT DEMONSTRATED IT DID NOT HAVE NOTICE OF THE WET CONDITION OF THE STAIRS IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, UNSIGNED DEPOSITION CONSTITUTED PLAINTIFF’S ADMISSION, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST 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

IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER BUS COMPANY LIABLE FOR... SNOW REMOVAL CONTRACTORS NOT LIABLE FOR PARKING LOT SLIP AND FALL, ESPINAL EXCEPTIONS...