Morris v. Chase Bank
| Decision Date | 11 February 2015 |
| Citation | 125 A.D.3d 731,4 N.Y.S.3d 105,2015 N.Y. Slip Op. 01249 |
| Parties | Thomas MORRIS, appellant, v. CHASE BANK, respondent, et al., defendants. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
125 A.D.3d 731
4 N.Y.S.3d 105
2015 N.Y. Slip Op. 01249
Thomas MORRIS, appellant
v.
CHASE BANK, respondent, et al., defendants.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Feb. 11, 2015.
Pamela Gabiger, Poughkeepsie, N.Y., for appellant.
Russo & Toner, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Marcin J. Kurzatkowski of counsel), for respondent.
REINALDO E. RIVERA, J.P., L. PRISCILLA HALL, LEONARD B. AUSTIN, and JEFFREY A. COHEN, JJ.
Opinion
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Brands, J.), dated August 27, 2013, as granted that branch of the motion of the defendant Chase Bank which was pursuant to CPLR 3211(a) to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against it.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
On October 31, 2010, the plaintiff was assaulted while attending a Halloween dinner at a property located at 278 Mill Street in Poughkeepsie. The plaintiff alleged that the dinner was hosted by the defendant Hudson River Housing, Inc., and/or the defendant Family Partnership Center, Incorporated. The plaintiff commenced this action to recover damages for his personal injuries against, among others, the defendant Chase
Bank (hereinafter Chase). The plaintiff alleged that Chase owned or controlled the subject property, and that it was aware that Hudson River Housing, Inc., and/or Family Partnership Center, Incorporated, had invited the public to a Halloween dinner to be held at that location. He alleged that Chase was negligent in allowing dangerous individuals, including his assailant, to congregate at the subject property, in failing to provide adequate security or proper supervision at the subject property, and in failing to intervene...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Riley-Murphy v. Cmty. Ambulance Co.
...on its property to prevent them from intentionally harming or creating an unreasonable risk of harm to others (see Morris v Chase Bank, 125 A.D.3d 731, 4 N.Y.S.3d 105 [2d Dept 2015]; Tiranno v Warthog, Inc., 119 A.D.3d 772, 990 N.Y.S.2d 248 [2d Dept 2014]; Couture v Miskovitz, 102 A.D.3d 72......
-
Riley-Murphy v. Cmty. Ambulance Co.
...on its property to prevent them from intentionally harming or creating an unreasonable risk of harm to others (see Morris v Chase Bank, 125 A.D.3d 731, 4 N.Y.S.3d 105 [2d Dept 2015]; Tiranno v Warthog, Inc., 119 A.D.3d 772, 990 N.Y.S.2d 248 [2d Dept 2014]; Couture v Miskovitz, 102 A.D.3d 72......
-
Tirpack v. 125 N. 10, LLC
...A.D.3d 660, 661, 799 N.Y.S.2d 65, quoting Leon v. Martinez, 84 N.Y.2d at 88, 614 N.Y.S.2d 972, 638 N.E.2d 511 ; see Morris v. Chase Bank, 125 A.D.3d 731, 4 N.Y.S.3d 105 ). Applying those principles, the complaint, as amplified by the plaintiff's affidavit, sets forth a cognizable cause of a......
-
Moret P'ship v. Spickerman
...General Business Law § 89–u, which applies to process servers outside of the City of New York, requires process servers to "maintain a 125 A.D.3d 731 legible record of all service made by him [or her] as prescribed in this section" ( General Business Law § 89–u[1] ). Unlike General Business......