You are here: / / MOTION TO DISMISS THE NEGLIGENCE ACTION AGAINST DEFENDANT SECURITY COMPANY...
, , ,

MOTION TO DISMISS THE NEGLIGENCE ACTION AGAINST DEFENDANT SECURITY COMPANY IN THIS THIRD PARTY ASSAULT CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, THE EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE DEFENDANT DID NOT RULE OUT LIABILITY BASED UPON THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE DEFENDANT SECURITY COMPANY AND THE COMPANY PROVIDING SECURITY AT THE TIME OF THE ASSAULT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined defendant security company’s motion to dismiss the complaint should not have been granted in this third party assault case. The complaint alleged the security company’s negligence resulted in the murder of plaintiff’s decedent at an assisted living facility. The defendant alleged it did not provide security there at the time of the murder. However, the documentary evidence submitted by defendant did not rule out the possibility the defendant company could be liable based upon its relationship with the company which was providing security at the time of the murder:

Generally, “a corporation which acquires the assets of another is not liable for the torts of its predecessor”… . However, such liability may arise if the successor corporation expressly or impliedly assumed the predecessor’s tort liability, there was a consolidation or merger of seller and purchaser, the purchaser corporation was a mere continuation of the seller corporation, or the transaction was entered into fraudulently to escape such obligations… .

Moreover, “[w]here, as here, evidentiary material is submitted and considered on a motion pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) . . . the motion should not be granted unless the movant can show that a material fact as claimed by the plaintiff is not a fact at all and unless it can be said that no significant dispute exists regarding it”… . ” Accordingly, consideration of such evidentiary materials will almost never warrant dismissal under CPLR 3211(a)(7) unless the materials establish conclusively that [the plaintiff] has no [claim or] cause of action'”… .

Contrary to the Supreme Court’s determination, the documentary and affidavit evidence submitted by USSA in support of its motion failed to conclusively establish that the plaintiff had no cause of action against it. More particularly, that evidence failed to demonstrate that the exceptions to the general rule of a successor corporation’s nonliability where there was a de facto merger between the purchaser and the seller, or where the purchaser is a mere continuation of the seller, do not apply to this case … . Shea v Salvation Army, 2019 NY Slip Op 01441, Second Dept 2-27-19

 

You might also like
ABSENT SUBSTANTIAL PREJUDICE OR OTHER IMPROPER RESULTS, A MOTION FOR LEAVE TO DISCONTINUE THE ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE SHOULD BE GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
THE PROVISION OF MENTAL HYGIENE LAW SECTION 10 THAT ALLOWS A COURT TO DETERMINE WHETHER THERE IS PROBABLE CAUSE TO BELIEVE PETITIONER, WHO HAD BEEN RELEASED TO A STRICT AND INTENSIVE SUPERVISION AND TREATEMENT (SIST) REGIMEN, IS A DANGEROUS SEX OFFENDER REQUIRING CONFINEMENT IS NOT UNCONSTITUTIONAL (SECOND DEPT).
COURTS HAVE THE DISCRETION TO GRANT A MOTION TO RENEW EVEN IF BASED ON INFORMATION KNOWN AT THE TIME OF THE ORIGINAL MOTION; HERE THE MOTION TO RENEW ADDRESSED AN OMISSION IN THE ORGINGAL MOTION PAPERS WHICH THE JUDGE HAD RAISED SUA SPONTE AS THE GROUND FOR DENYING THE MOTION (SECOND DEPT).
Father’s Recording of Defendant’s Berating and Threatening Father’s Child Admissible Under the “Vicarious Consent” Theory (Father Vicariously Consented, on Behalf of the Child, to the Recording)/Variance Between Jury Instruction and Charges in the Indictment Was Harmless Error–No Possibility Defendant Was Convicted of a Theory Not Encompassed by the Indictment
GRANDMOTHER SHOULD HAVE BEEN NOTIFIED OF HER RIGHT TO COUNSEL IN THIS CUSTODY CASE; MATTER SENT BACK TO FAMILY COURT TO DETERMINE WHETHER GRANDMOTHER WAS ELIGIBLE FOR ASSIGNED COUNSEL (THIRD DEPT).
JUDGE EXHIBITED BIAS AGAINST MOTHER AND INTERFERED EXCESSIVELY IN THE CUSTODY HEARING; NEW HEARING ORDERED BEFORE A DIFFERENT JUDGE (SECOND DEPT).
THE EXPERTS WHO TESTIFIED THE SEIZED SUBSTANCES CONTAINED HEROIN OR COCAINE RELIED ON COMPARISONS WITH STANDARD SAMPLES IN THEIR LABS BUT NO EVIDENCE WAS OFFERED TO DEMONSTRATE THE ACCURACY OF THE SAMPLES; THEREFORE THE EXPERTS’ OPINIONS RELIED ON EVIDENCE NOT IN THE RECORD; CONVICTIONS REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).
Nothing in the Documentation Submitted to the Lender Raised Any Questions About the Applicant’s Authority, as the Sole Member, to Enter the Mortgage on Behalf of Defendant Limited Liability Company—Therefore the Affirmative Defense Alleging the Mortgage Was Invalid Because there Were Undisclosed Members of the Limited Liability Company Was Properly Dismissed

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

DEFENDANT ENTITLED TO PERMISSIVE ADVERSE INFERENCE JURY INSTRUCTION BASED UPON... DEFENDANT SOLE SHAREHOLDER OF DEFENDANT CORPORATION WAS NOT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY...