You are here: / / DEFENDANT BAR NOT LIABLE FOR INJURIES AND DEATH OF PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT...

DEFENDANT BAR NOT LIABLE FOR INJURIES AND DEATH OF PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT RESULTING FROM AN ALTERCATION ON A PUBLIC ROAD IN FRONT OF THE BAR, BAR EXERCISED NO CONTROL OVER THE AREA WHERE THE ALTERCATION OCCURRED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, affirming the defendant bar’s motion for summary judgment in this third party assault case, determined that the owner of the bar was not liable to plaintiff’s decedent who died of injuries from an altercation which occurred on the public road in front of the bar:

Landowners in general have a duty to act in a reasonable manner to prevent harm to those on their property … . In particular, they have a duty to control the conduct of third persons on their premises when they have the opportunity to control such persons and are reasonably aware of the need for such control… . Under this rationale, courts have recognized that a landowner may have responsibility for injuries caused by an intoxicated guest … . However, it is “uniformly acknowledged that liability may be imposed only for injuries that occurred on defendant’s property, or in an area under defendant’s control, where defendant had the opportunity to supervise the intoxicated guest” … . Moreover, a landowner is not an insurer of a visitor’s safety, and has no duty to protect visitors against unforeseeable and unexpected assaults… .

Here, the bar defendants submitted evidence demonstrating that the altercation was a sudden and unforeseeable event, which occurred on a public roadway, outside of their premises and control … . Covelli v Silver Fist, Ltd., 2018 NY Slip Op 08914, Second Dept 12-26-18

 

You might also like
THE INSTALLATION OF LARGE INDVIDUAL LETTERS FOR A SIGN ON THE FRONT SOFFIT OF A BUILDING CONSTITUTED “ALTERING” THE BUILDING TO WHICH LABOR LAW 240(1) AND 241(6) APPLY; BECAUSE THE DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT DID NOT HAVE ACTUAL NOTICE OF THE DANGEROUS CONDITION OF THE SOFFIT (WHICH COLLAPSED), THE LABOR LAW 200 CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).
THE CERTIFICATION ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO FILE A NOTE OF ISSUE WITHIN 90 DAYS WAS NOT A VALID 90-DAY NOTICE PURSUANT TO CPLR 3216; THE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED AND THE CROSS-MOTION TO EXTEND THE TIME FOR FILING A NOTE OF ISSUE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
THE PLAINTIFF WAS PROPERLY ALLOWED TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM ASSERTING A NEW CAUSE OF ACTION, ALTHOUGH THE ORIGINAL NOTICE OF CLAIM DID NOT MENTION AN ALLEGEDLY MISSING STOP SIGN AS A BASIS FOR LIABILITY, THE MISSING STOP SIGN WAS MENTIONED IN THE POLICE REPORT WHICH WAS ATTACHED TO THE ORIGINAL NOTICE OF CLAIM (SECOND DEPT).
MALPRACTICE COMPLAINT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, ANALYTICAL CRITERIA EXPLAINED.
MOTION TO RENEW PETITION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM IN THIS WRONGFUL DEATH ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED.
Post-Accident Surveillance Videos Properly Excluded from Trial, Videos Did Not Demonstrate “Habit” or “Routine Procedure” Which Rose to the Level of Admissible Circumstantial Evidence of the Cause of Ice Formation
BECAUSE THE ORDER DISMISSING THE INITIAL COMPLAINT DID NOT SPECIFY CONDUCT CONSTITUTING NEGLECT TO PROSECUTE, THE SIX-MONTH TOLL OF THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS PURSUANT TO CPLR 205 (a) APPLIED AND THE ACTION WAS TIMELY; THE DISSENT DISAGREED (SECOND DEPT).
ALTHOUGH THE STATE HAS A DUTY TO PROTECT INMATES FROM ASSAULTS BY OTHER INMATES, THAT DUTY DOES NOT EXTEND TO UNFORESEEABLE ATTACKS (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

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER FRONTMOST DRIVER NEGLIGENTLY BROUGHT HER CAR TO A COMPLETE... INDICATING INCONSISTENT DECISIONS SHOULD NO LONGER BE FOLLOWED, THE SECOND DEPT...