You are here: / / OWNERS OF A RESTAURANT-BAR NOT LIABLE FOR AN ATTACK ON PLAINTIFF IN THE...

OWNERS OF A RESTAURANT-BAR NOT LIABLE FOR AN ATTACK ON PLAINTIFF IN THE ADJACENT PARKING LOT IN THIS THIRD-PARTY ASSAULT CASE, THE ATTACK WAS NOT FORESEEABLE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the owners of a restaurant/bar were not liable for an attack on plaintiff int the adjacent parking lot:

“Landowners, as a general rule, have a duty to exercise reasonable care to prevent harm to patrons on their property” … . “However, an owner’s duty to control the conduct of persons on its premises arises only when it has the opportunity to control such conduct, and is reasonably aware of the need for such control” … . “Thus, the owner of a public establishment has no duty to protect patrons against unforeseeable and unexpected assaults” … .

Here, the defendants established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting evidence demonstrating that the attack on the plaintiff was unforeseeable and unexpected … . Oblatore v 67 W. Main St., LLC, 2019 NY Slip Op 00892, Second Dept 2-6-19

 

You might also like
Therapeutic Dog Allowed In Court to Support Alleged Child Victim of Sexual Offenses During Trial Testimony
PLAINTIFF IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE ALLEGED DEFENDANT DRIVER WAS DEFENDANT COMPANY’S EMPLOYEE AND WAS ACTING WITHIN THE SCOPE OF EMPLOYMENT AT THE TIME OF THE ACCIDENT; DEFENDANT COMPANY FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE THE DRIVER WAS AN INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR, NOT AN EMPLOYEE; THE FACT THAT THE EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT USES THE TERM “INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR” IS NOT DISPOSITIVE OF THE ISSUE (SECOND DEPT). ​
IN THIS PARKING-LOT-ICE SLIP AND FALL CASE, THE SNOW REMOVAL CONTRACTOR DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT DID NOT LAUNCH AN INSTRUMENT OF HARM AND THE PROPERTY OWNERS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THEY DID NOT HAVE CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE DANGEROUS CONDITION; THE DEFENDANTS’ SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTIONS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
THE PEOPLE PRESENTED INSUFFICIENT PROOF ON RISK FACTORS 2 AND 4, REQUIRING A 45 POINT REDUCTION (SECOND DEPT).
EVIDENCE OF KNOWING POSSESSION OF A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE WAS SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT AN INDICTMENT, SUPREME COURT REVERSED.
ALTHOUGH THE PLAINTIFF BANK DID NOT INITIATE PROCEEDINGS TO TAKE A JUDGMENT WITHIN ONE YEAR OF DEFENDANTS’ DEFAULT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION, THE DEFENDANTS HAD FILED AN UNTIMELY ANSWER WHICH WAIVED THE DEFENDANTS’ RIGHT TO SEEK DISMISSAL OF THE COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO CPLR 3215 (C) (SECOND DEPT). ​
THE ‘COVID-19’ EXECUTIVE ORDER GENERALLY TOLLING THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS DID NOT EXTEND THE TIME FOR FILING A PETITION TO VALIDATE A DESIGNATING PETITION, WHICH IS GOVERNED BY ANOTHER ‘COVID-19’ EXECUTIVE ORDER (SECOND DEPT). ​
Amendment of Notice of Claim Including Substantive Changes to the Facts and New Theories of Liability Should Not Have Been Allowed—Original Notice of Claim Inadequate

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

FAMILY COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION BY DENYING THE APPLICATION FOR AN ADJOURNMENT... PLAINTIFF WAS STRUCK BY A PIECE OF UNSECURED PLYWOOD WHICH FELL, PLAINTIFF’S...