You are here: / / Criteria for Property Owner’s Liability for an Assault by an Intoxicated...

Criteria for Property Owner’s Liability for an Assault by an Intoxicated Guest Explained

The Second Department noted that the owners of property were not liable for injuries stemming an assault by an intoxicated guest at a party hosted by the property owners’ daughter.  The property owners demonstrated they were out of town when the party was held and did not know their daughter held such parties:

Under a theory of common-law negligence, a landowner may have responsibility for injuries caused by an intoxicated guest …, although liability may be imposed only for injuries that occurred on a defendant’s property, or in an area under the defendant’s control, where the defendant had the opportunity to supervise the intoxicated guest and was reasonably aware of the need for such control … . “Without the requisite awareness [of the risk or threat], there is no duty” … .

Here, the appellants established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the cause of action alleging common-law negligence insofar as asserted against them. The evidence submitted in support of the appellants’ motion demonstrated that they were out of town when the party took place at their home, that they had not authorized their daughter Monica to have a party, and that they were unaware of its occurrence. Moreover, the evidence demonstrated that they had no knowledge that, prior to the subject party, their daughter had thrown any parties while they were out of town at which individuals under the age of 21 were drinking alcohol. Thus, the appellants had no opportunity to control [the assailant’s] conduct, nor were they aware of the necessity therefor, both of which are prerequisites to imposing liability upon a landowner in these circumstances … . Heyman v Harooni, 2015 NY Slip Op 07818, 2nd Dept 10-28-15

 

You might also like
THE CONSENT-TO-SEARCH PROBATION CONDITION WAS NOT INDIVIDUALLY TAILORED TO THE OFFENSE AND SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN IMPOSED; IT WAS NOT NECESSARY TO PRESERVE THE ERROR FOR APPEAL AND APPEAL WAS NOT PROHIBITED BY THE DEFENDANT’S WAIVER OF HIS RIGHT TO APPEAL (SECOND DEPT).
Failure to Specifically Demonstrate When Area Where Fall Occurred Was Last Inspected or Cleaned Required Denial of Summary Judgment
CITY’S POTENTIAL LIABILITY FOR THE ACTIONS OF A CITY BUS DRIVER WAS BASED ON RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR, THEREFORE A NEGLIGENT HIRING AND RETENTION ACTION WAS NOT VIABLE AND THE DRIVER’S PERSONNEL FILE WAS NOT DISCOVERABLE (SECOND DEPT).
INSURER DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE INSUREDS’ LACK OF COOPERATION WITH THE INVESTIGATION INTO THE TRAFFIC ACCIDENT AND DID NOT MAKE A TIMELY DISCLAIMER, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT, ALTHOUGH CONVICTED OF AN ARMED FELONY, SHOULD HAVE BEEN ACCORDED YOUTHFUL OFFENDER STATUS, CRITERIA EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT).
BANK’S PROOF OF THE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304 INSUFFICIENT, BANK’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
LETTERS PURPORTING TO CONSTITUTE TIME OF THE ESSENCE NOTICE DID NOT CONSTITUTE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE WHICH CAN SUPPORT A MOTION TO DISMISS, ALTHOUGH NOT RAISED BELOW THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE ISSUE WAS A PROPER BASIS FOR REVERSAL ON APPEAL (SECOND DEPT).
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).

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

Criteria for Amending a Complaint to Replace “John Does” with Named... Plaintiff’s Own Negligence Broke Any Causal Chain Between Defendant’s...