You are here: / / SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED TO THE CLUB AND THE SECURITY...
,

SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED TO THE CLUB AND THE SECURITY COMPANY IN THIS THIRD PARTY ASSAULT CASE; THERE WERE QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER THE CLUB COULD BE HELD RESPONSIBLE FOR CRIMINAL ACTIVITY IN THE STREET IN FRONT OF THE CLUB, WHETHER THE CLUB WAS THE SPECIAL EMPLOYER OF THE BOUNCERS AND THEREFORE SUBJECT TO VICARIOUS LIABILITY, AND WHETHER THERE WAS DRAM SHOP ACT LIABILITY (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the defendant club (Sin City) and security company (Emissary) were not entitled to summary judgment in this third-party assault case. The facts are not described, but apparently plaintiffs were assaulted on the street in front of the club. There was a question of fact whether Sin City was a special employer and therefore vicariously liable for the actions of Emissary’s bouncers. The court noted, with respect to the Dram Shop Act (General Obligations Law 11-101) cause of action, the defendants did not demonstrate the assailants were not served alcohol while visibly intoxicated and did not demonstrate the sale of alcohol to the assailants had no connection to the assault:

Issues of fact remain as to defendants’ control of the street in front of the club, where plaintiffs’ assault occurred … ; whether defendants could or should have foreseen plaintiffs’ assault, given not only the events that transpired in the club prior to the assault … , but also the acts of violent or criminal conduct at the club predating plaintiffs’ assault … and, whether Sin City was the special employer, and is therefore vicariously liable for the acts and omissions, of Emissary’s bouncers, who provided security for Sin City on the night in question and allegedly assaulted the plaintiffs … . Ballard v Sin City Entertainment Corp., 2020 NY Slip Op 06842, First Dept 11-19-20

 

You might also like
BOTH PARTIES MOVED TO EXTEND THE DEADLINE FOR FILING A NOTE OF ISSUE BECAUSE DISCOVERY WAS NOT COMPLETE; DENYING THE MOTION MADE IT IMPOSSIBLE FOR THE CASE TO PROGRESS; SUPREME COURT REVERSED (FIRST DEPT).
THE ORDER DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT FOR FAILURE TO SEEK A DEFAULT JUDGMENT WITHIN ONE YEAR DID NOT INLCUDE SPECIFIC FINDINGS OF A PATTERN OF DELAY; THEREFORE THE “FAILURE TO PROSECUTE” EXCEPTION IN CPLR 205 (A) DID NOT APPLY; PLAINTIFF’S ACTION BROUGHT WITHIN SIX MONTHS OF DISMISSAL WAS NOT TIME-BARRED (FIRST DEPT).
Supreme Court Does Not Have the Power to Dismiss a Complaint for Delay in Prosecution Absent 90-Notice (CPLR 3216)
MATERIAL PUBLISHED ON DEFENDANTS’ WEBSITE DID NOT RISE TO THE LEVEL OF THREATENING SPEECH THAT WOULD ALLOW PRIOR RESTRAINT, PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION NOT GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).
OUT-OF-POSSESSION LANDLORD CAN BE LIABLE UNDER LABOR LAW 240 AND 241.
A HEAVY PUMP, 3 TO 4 FEET IN HEIGHT, WHICH WAS LEANING AGAINST THE WALL, TIPPED OVER AND STRUCK THE PLAINTIFF; PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION (FIRST DEPT).
DEFENDANT’S RELIANCE ON ITS INSURANCE BROKER TO HANDLE A LABOR LAW PERSONAL INJURY CLAIM WAS NOT, UNDER THE FACTS, A SUFFICIENT EXCUSE, THE DEFAULT JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN VACATED.
BECAUSE THE RESPONDENT CREATED AMBIGUITY ABOUT WHETHER IT WAS STILL CONSIDERING PETITIONER’S FOIL REQUEST AFTER EXPIRATION OF THE 10-DAY CONSTRUCTIVE-DENIAL PERIOD, THE FOUR-MONTH PERIOD FOR COMMENCING AN ARTICLE 78 PROCEEDING DID NOT START ON THE CONSTRUCTIVE-DENIAL DATE; THE ARTICLE 78 PROCEEDING WAS TIMELY COMMENCED (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 THE CONTEXT OF A LAWSUIT BY THE BOARD MEMBERS OF AN UNINCORPORATED CONDOMINIUM... “AT ISSUE” WAIVER OF THE ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE EXPLAINED; AS...