Barnes–joseph v. Smith
Decision Date | 11 May 2010 |
Parties | Makeda BARNES–JOSEPH, Plaintiff–Appellant,v.Remy K. SMITH, et al., Defendants,Universal Music Group, Inc., et al., Defendants–Respondents. |
Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Lauren P. Raysor, New York, for appellant.Fiedelman & McGaw, Jericho (Ross P. Masler of counsel), for respondents.SAXE, J.P., FRIEDMAN, NARDELLI, FREEDMAN, ABDUS–SALAAM, JJ.
Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Betty Owen Stinson, J.), entered on or about April 6, 2009, which granted defendants-respondents' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and cross claims against them, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
This matter arises from the shooting of plaintiff by defendant Remy K. Smith, a hip-hop artist whose persona has been described as violent and anti-social. Plaintiff alleges that defendants-respondents negligently created and promoted her violent persona for profit but failed to take precautions to prevent her from injuring plaintiff, a guest at Smith's birthday party. To the extent plaintiff's allegations support a claim for negligent hiring, defendants-respondents met their initial burden on the motion by submitting affidavits and Smith's recording contract demonstrating that Smith was never an employee of theirs but was employed by an affiliated party that is not a named defendant here ( see Sheila C. v. Povich, 11 A.D.3d 120, 129, 781 N.Y.S.2d 342 [2004]; Acevedo v. Audubon Mgt., 280 A.D.2d 91, 97, 721 N.Y.S.2d 332 [2001] ). Even if defendants-respondents and the affiliated party could be deemed a single entity, the release agreement demonstrates that any relationship between Smith and defendants-respondents would have been terminated nine months before the shooting incident. Plaintiff failed to submit evidence sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact as to Smith's relationship with defendants-respondents at the time of the shooting, and her contention that discovery would reveal issues of fact is based on “mere hope or conjecture” ( Waverly Corp. v. City of New York, 48 A.D.3d 261, 265, 851 N.Y.S.2d 176 [2008] ).
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Gallo v. Albert
...claims. C.P.L.R. §3212(f); W & W Glass Svs., Inc. v. Admiral Ins. Co., 91 A.D.3d 530, 531 (1st Dep't 2012); Barnes-Joseph v. Smith, 73 A.D.3d 494, 495 (1st Dep't 2010); MAP Mar. Ltd. v. China Constr. Bank Corp., 70 A.D.3d 404, 405 (1st Dep't 2010); Brown v. Bauman, 42 A.D.3d 390, 393 (1st D......
-
Lorenzo v. Great Performances/Artists as Waitresses, Inc
...than "mere hope or conjecture." River Park Assoc. (1972) L.P. v. Richman Plaza Garage Corp., 178 A.D.3d at 423; Barnes-Joseph v. Smith, 73 A.D.3d 494, 495 (1st Dep't 2010). See Singh v. New York City Hous. Auth., 177 A.D.3d at 476; State of N.Y. ex rel Perkins v. Cooke Ctr. for Learning & D......
-
Moore v. URS Corp.
...11th Street, 80 A.D.3d at 114. Defendants must support such a contention with more than "mere hope or conjecture." Barnes-Joseph v. Smith, 73 A.D.3d 494, 495 (1st Dep't 2010). See Kent v. 534 East 11th Street, 80 A.D.3d at 114; MAP Mar. Ltd. v. China Constr. Bank Corp., 70 A.D.3d 404, 405 (......
-
West 63 Empire Assocs., LLC v. Walker & Zanger, Inc.
...will not warrant such a denial or continuance. Kent v. 534 East 11th Street, 80 A.D.3d 106, 114 (1st Dep't 2010); Barnes-Joseph v. Smith, 73 A.D.3d 494, 495 (1st Dep't 2010); MAP Mar. Ltd. v. China Constr. Bank Corp., 70 A.D.3d 404, 405 (1st Dep't 2010); Chalk & Vermillion v. Thomas P. McKn......