You are here: / / DEFENDANT PROPERTY OWNER NOT LIABLE FOR INJURY CAUSED BY THE SPONTANEOUS...

DEFENDANT PROPERTY OWNER NOT LIABLE FOR INJURY CAUSED BY THE SPONTANEOUS ACT OF A BAR PATRON (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant bar owner could not be liable for the spontaneous act of a bar patron which injured plaintiff:

… [T]he plaintiff allegedly sustained personal injuries at the defendants’ bar in Nassau County. At the time of the alleged incident, a female patron purportedly jumped onto the lap of a male patron, who was sitting on a bar stool. This apparently caused the two patrons and the bar stool to fall on top of the plaintiff, who was standing nearby. The plaintiff was “knocked” down to the floor…. ….

A property owner, which must act in a reasonable manner to prevent harm to those on its premises, has a duty to control the conduct of persons on its premises when it has the opportunity to control such conduct, and is reasonably aware of the need to do so … . Here, the defendants established, prima facie, that the alleged incident was spontaneous, and could not have been reasonably anticipated and prevented … . York v Paddy’s Loft Corp., 2022 NY Slip Op 04931, Second Dept 8-10-22

Practice Point: Here defendant bar owner could not be held liable for the spontaneous act of a bar patron which injured plaintiff.

 

You might also like
Failure to Notify Insured of Change in Coverage for Fire Insurance (In Violation of Insurance Law 3425 (d)) May Constitute a Deceptive Business Practice Under General Business Law 349
THE BANK’S PROOF OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304 WAS INSUFFICIENT (SECOND DEPT).
THE “BUILDING” DEFENDANTS AND THE COMPANY WHICH INSTALLED AND MAINTAINED THE AIR CONDITIONING UNIT WHICH ALLEGEDLY LEAKED WATER ON THE FLOOR WERE NOT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE; THE LANDLORD DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT WAS AN OUT-OF-POSSESSION LANDLORD; THE “BUILDING” DEFENDANTS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THEY DID NOT HAVE ACTUAL OR CONSTRUCTIVE KNOWLEDGE OF THE CONDITION; AND THE COMPANY WHICH INSTALLED AND MAINTAINED THE AIR CONDITIONER DID NOT SHOW IT DID NOT LAUNCH AND INSTRUMENT OF HARM (SECOND DEPT).
ALTHOUGH THE CO-DEFENDANT WAS SO INFORMED IN DEFENDANT’S PRESENCE, DEFENDANT WAS NOT DIRECTLY INFORMED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF DEPORTATION BY THE JUDGE; MATTER REMITTED TO GIVE DEFENDANT THE OPPORTUNITY TO MOVE TO WITHDRAW HIS GUILTY PLEA (SECOND DEPT).
QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER THE INSURED MADE A SPECIFIC REQUEST TO DEFENDANT INSURANCE-BROKER FOR COVERAGE AND WHETHER THERE WAS A SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE INSURED AND THE BROKER; THE BREACH OF CONTRACT CAUSE OF ACTION PROPERLY SURVIVED SUMMARY JUDGMENT; THE NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATION CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).
THE COVID TOLL OF THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS RENDERED THIS NEGLIGENCE ACTION AGAINST A MUNICIPALITY TIMELY (SECOND DEPT). ​
THERE WAS A SURPLUS AFTER THE FORECLOSURE SALE OF DEFENDANT’S PROPERTY; DEFENDANT HAD ENTERED A HOME EQUITY LINE OF CREDIT WITH CITIBANK; CITIBANK, NOT DEFENDANT, WAS ENTITLED TO THE SURPLUS FUNDS (SECOND DEPT).
Marching Band Director Did Not Assume the Risk of Injury Caused by a Defect in the Roadway

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

PLAINTIFF’S EVIDENCE OF THE CAUSE OF THE SLIP AND FALL, A RAISED SIDEWALK... THE CITY PROPERLY AMENDED ITS CHARTER DELETING THE PROVISIONS REQUIRING THE...