You are here: / / DEFENDANT DID NOT STRIKE PLAINTIFF AND WAS UNDER NO DUTY TO PROTECT PLAINTIFF...
,

DEFENDANT DID NOT STRIKE PLAINTIFF AND WAS UNDER NO DUTY TO PROTECT PLAINTIFF FROM AN ASSAULT BY OTHERS, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS BAR-FIGHT CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that defendant’s motion for summary judgment in this third-party assault bar-fight case should have been granted. Defendant did not strike the plaintiff and was not under a duty to protect plaintiff from the conduct of others:

The plaintiff commenced this action, inter alia, to recover damages for personal injuries he sustained on January 7, 2013, at premises owned by the defendant Bulldog Grille, when he allegedly was physically assaulted by the defendants John Heinbuch, John Doe #1, and/or John Doe #2, who were patrons of the Bulldog Grille. …

“Generally, there is no duty to control the conduct of third persons to prevent them from causing injury to others'”  … . Here, Heinbuch established his prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that he did not strike the plaintiff and that he had no duty to control the conduct of the persons who assaulted the plaintiff … . In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether Heinbuch created the situation which led to the assault, or acted tortiously pursuant to a tacit agreement to assault or batter the plaintiff … . Lanfranchi v Grille, 2019 NY Slip Op 03780, Second Dept 5-15-19

 

You might also like
PROPER VENUE FOR TWO LAWSUITS JOINED FOR TRIAL IS THE COUNTY WHERE THE FIRST LAWSUIT WAS FILED.
USE OF A SINGLE FAMILY HOME FOR MOSTLY WEEKEND SHORT-RENTALS IS NOT A LEGAL NONCONFORMING USE OF THE PROPERTY (SECOND DEPT).
A PARTY INJURED IN A HIT AND RUN TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CANNOT SUE THE MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT INDEMNIFICATION CORPORATION (MVAIC) IF THE PARTY WAS OPERATING AN UNINSURED MOTOR VEHICLE AT THE TIME OF THE ACCIDENT; HERE THE ELECTRIC BIKE PETITIONER WAS OPERATING WAS DEEMED AN UNINSURED MOTOR VEHICLE (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF, WHO WAS SWEEPING THE FLOOR WHEN HE WAS STRUCK BY BY A PIECE OF A SKIDLOADER USED TO HOIST A MOTOR, WAS NOT ENGAGED IN AN ACTIVITY COVERED BY LABOR LAW 240 (1), 241 (6) OR COMMON LAW NEGLIGENCE (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT CITY DEMONSTRATED IT DID NOT EXERCISE ANY SUPERVISORY CONTROL OVER THE MANNER OF PLAINTIFF’S WORK IN THIS LABOR LAW 200 ACTION; THEREFORE THE CITY’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT). ​
THE REFEREE DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO PRECLUDE DEFENDANT FROM PRESENTING EVIDENCE AS AN APPARENT SANCTION FOR DEFENDANT’S FAILURE TO APPEAR; THE REFEREE’S REPORT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONFIRMED (SECOND DEPT).
THE REFEREE REPORT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION RELIED ON HEARSAY AND THEREFORE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONFIRMED (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF SUED BOTH THE COUNTY AND THE SHERIFF FOR ALLEGED EXPOSURE TO CONTAMINATED WATER IN THE SHOWER AT THE JAIL; THE ACTION AGAINST THE COUNTY WAS NOT BROUGHT UNDER A VICARIOUS LIABILITY THEORY (THE COUNTY IS NOT VICARIOUSLY LIABLE FOR THE ACTS OR OMISSIONS OF THE SHERIFF); RATHER THE CAUSE OF ACTION ALLEGED THE COUNTY WAS NEGLIGENT IN ITS OWN RIGHT (SECOND 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

STATEMENT MADE BY BANK EMPLOYEE TO THE EFFECT THE BANK WAS CLOSING THE ACCOUNT... PLAINTIFF-STUDENT WAS WATCHING FOOTBALL PRACTICE FROM THE SIDELINES WHEN A BLOCKING...