You are here: / / PLAINTIFF’S NEGLIGENCE ACTION AGAINST A SECURITY COMPANY HIRED BY...
,

PLAINTIFF’S NEGLIGENCE ACTION AGAINST A SECURITY COMPANY HIRED BY KMART SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED IN A FIGHT WITH A KMART EMPLOYEE, PLAINTIFF WAS NOT A THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARY OF THE CONTRACT BETWEEN KMART AND THE SECURITY COMPANY, PLAINTIFF DID NOT RELY ON THE PERFORMANCE OF THE SECURITY COMPANY’S DUTIES, AND THE SECURITY COMPANY DID NOT FULLY DISPLACE KMART’S DUTY TO PROVIDE SECURITY (ESPINAL FACTORS) (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that plaintiff’s negligence action against a security company (US Security) hired by Kmart did not state a cause of action for tort liability stemming from a contract (Espinal criteria). Plaintiff was injured in a fight with a Kmart employee in a Kmart store. The First Department held that plaintiff was not a third party beneficiary of the contract between Kmart and US Security, did not rely to his detriment on the performance of US Security’s duties, and US Security did not entirely supplant Kmart’s duty to secure the store:

Plaintiff was not an intended third-party beneficiary of the contract between Kmart and U.S. Security, which contains a “No Third Party Beneficiaries” clause … .

Nor can a duty be imposed on U.S. Security on the ground either that plaintiff relied to his detriment on the continued performance of U.S. Security’s contractual duties or that U.S. Security had entirely displaced Kmart’s duty to secure its store … . Plaintiff’s affidavit says nothing about having knowledge of the contract between Kmart and U.S. Security or about detrimental reliance on U.S. Security’s continued performance thereunder … .

As for entire displacement, while the written scope of U.S. Security’s services included “the protection of … customers … in the Premises,” the deposition testimony of the loss prevention manager at the relevant Kmart store makes it clear that, in actual practice, U.S. Security’s services at that store were limited to deterring shoplifting … . Furthermore, U.S. Security did not totally displace Kmart’s duty to secure its store, because Kmart retained supervisory authority over the security guards and required U.S. Security’s staff to complete training in accordance with its (Kmart’s) safety policies and procedures … . Santiago v K Mart Corp., 2018 NY Slip Op 01296, First Dept 2-27-18

NEGLIGENCE (THIRD PARTY ASSAULT, SECURITY COMPANY, PLAINTIFF’S NEGLIGENCE ACTION AGAINST A SECURITY COMPANY HIRED BY KMART SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED IN A FIGHT WITH A KMART EMPLOYEE, PLAINTIFF WAS NOT A THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARY OF THE CONTRACT BETWEEN KMART AND THE SECURITY COMPANY, PLAINTIFF DID NOT RELY ON THE PERFORMANCE OF THE SECURITY COMPANY’S DUTIES, AND THE SECURITY COMPANY DID NOT FULLY DISPLACE KMART’S DUTY TO PROVIDE SECURITY (FIRST DEPT))/ASSAULT, LIABILITY FOR THIRD PARTY (SECURITY COMPANY, PLAINTIFF’S NEGLIGENCE ACTION AGAINST A SECURITY COMPANY HIRED BY KMART SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED IN A FIGHT WITH A KMART EMPLOYEE, PLAINTIFF WAS NOT A THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARY OF THE CONTRACT BETWEEN KMART AND THE SECURITY COMPANY, PLAINTIFF DID NOT RELY ON THE PERFORMANCE OF THE SECURITY COMPANY’S DUTIES, AND THE SECURITY COMPANY DID NOT FULLY DISPLACE KMART’S DUTY TO PROVIDE SECURITY (FIRST DEPT))/ESPINAL (THIRD PARTY ASSAULT LIABILITY, SECURITY COMPANY, PLAINTIFF’S NEGLIGENCE ACTION AGAINST A SECURITY COMPANY HIRED BY KMART SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED IN A FIGHT WITH A KMART EMPLOYEE, PLAINTIFF WAS NOT A THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARY OF THE CONTRACT BETWEEN KMART AND THE SECURITY COMPANY, PLAINTIFF DID NOT RELY ON THE PERFORMANCE OF THE SECURITY COMPANY’S DUTIES, AND THE SECURITY COMPANY DID NOT FULLY DISPLACE KMART’S DUTY TO PROVIDE SECURITY (FIRST DEPT))/SECURITY COMPANIES (LIABILITY FOR THIRD PARTY ASSAULT, PLAINTIFF’S NEGLIGENCE ACTION AGAINST A SECURITY COMPANY HIRED BY KMART SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED IN A FIGHT WITH A KMART EMPLOYEE, PLAINTIFF WAS NOT A THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARY OF THE CONTRACT BETWEEN KMART AND THE SECURITY COMPANY, PLAINTIFF DID NOT RELY ON THE PERFORMANCE OF THE SECURITY COMPANY’S DUTIES, AND THE SECURITY COMPANY DID NOT FULLY DISPLACE KMART’S DUTY TO PROVIDE SECURITY (FIRST DEPT))/CONTRACT, TORT LIABILITY BASED UPON PLAINTIFF’S NEGLIGENCE ACTION AGAINST A SECURITY COMPANY HIRED BY KMART SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED IN A FIGHT WITH A KMART EMPLOYEE, PLAINTIFF WAS NOT A THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARY OF THE CONTRACT BETWEEN KMART AND THE SECURITY COMPANY, PLAINTIFF DID NOT RELY ON THE PERFORMANCE OF THE SECURITY COMPANY’S DUTIES, AND THE SECURITY COMPANY DID NOT FULLY DISPLACE KMART’S DUTY TO PROVIDE SECURITY (FIRST DEPT))/CONTRACT LAW (TORT LIABILITY STEMMING FROM, ESPINAL CRITERIA, PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED IN A FIGHT WITH A KMART EMPLOYEE, PLAINTIFF WAS NOT A THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARY OF THE CONTRACT BETWEEN KMART AND THE SECURITY COMPANY, PLAINTIFF DID NOT RELY ON THE PERFORMANCE OF THE SECURITY COMPANY’S DUTIES, AND THE SECURITY COMPANY DID NOT FULLY DISPLACE KMART’S DUTY TO PROVIDE SECURITY (FIRST DEPT))

You might also like
Acceptance of Settlement Offer Not Communicated to Opposing Party or Insurer—No Settlement—Attorney Lost Contingency Fee Based on Settlement Amount.
PLAINTIFF FAILED TO SATISFY HIS BURDEN TO PROVE HIS INJURIES WERE CAUSED BY A PARTICULAR TRAIN AND THE OPERATOR OF THE TRAIN WAS NEGLIGENT; GRANT OF MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE PLAINTIFF’S VERDICT AFFIRMED.
NONSIGNATORY NOT BOUND BY ARBITRATION CLAUSE IN ENGAGEMENT LETTER (FIRST DEPT).
APPELLANT PROPERLY FOUND TO BE A PERSON LEGALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CHILD, CRITERIA EXPLAINED.
DEFENDANT IN THIS MED MAL CASE WAS NOT PROPERLY SERVED AND PLAINTIFF WAS NOT ENTITLED TO AN EXTENSION OF THE TIME TO SERVE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (FIRST DEPT).
A THEORY ASSERTED FOR THE FIRST TIME IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION, AFTER DISCOVERY HAD ENDED, SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF DID NOT CITE A VIOLATION OF ANY INDUSTRIAL CODE PROVISION IN THE COMPLAINT OR BILL OF PARTICULARS, WHICH WOULD ENTITLE DEFENDANT TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 241(6) CAUSE OF ACTION; HOWEVER PLAINTIFF SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO AMEND THE BILL OF PARTICULARS TO ADD A CODE VIOLATION (FIRST DEPT).
THE NEARLY THREE-YEAR GAP BETWEEN PLAINTIFF’S KNEE SURGERY AND HIS SEEING THE SURGEON TO COMPLAIN OF KNEE PAIN DID NOT PRECLUDE THE APPLICABILITY OF THE CONTINUOUS TREATMENT DOCTRINE TO TOLL THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS (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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

PROPERTY OWNER LIABLE FOR PLAINTIFF’S FALL FROM A LADDER (UNDER LABOR... LEGAL GUARDIAN’S PETITION TO ADOPT CHILD SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED BASED...