Solomon v. Nat'l Amusements, Inc.

• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
• Citation: Solomon v. Nat'l Amusements, Inc., 2015 NY Slip Op 4306, 128 A.D.3d 947, 9 N.Y.S.3d 398 (N.Y. App. Div. 2015)
• Decision Date: 20 May 2015
• Docket Number: 2014-07269
• Parties: Boris SOLOMON, et al., respondents, v. NATIONAL AMUSEMENTS, INC., et al., appellants.

128 A.D.3d 947

9 N.Y.S.3d 398

2015 N.Y. Slip Op. 04306

Boris SOLOMON, et al., respondents

v.NATIONAL AMUSEMENTS, INC., et al., appellants.

2014-07269

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

May 20, 2015.

Ahmuty, Demers & McManus, Albertson, N.Y. (Nicholas M. Cardascia and Glenn A. Kaminska of counsel), for appellants.

Sylvor & Richman, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Boris Sorin of counsel), for respondents.

RANDALL T. ENG, P.J., JOHN M. LEVENTHAL, L. PRISCILLA HALL, and SHERI S. ROMAN, JJ.

Opinion

In a consolidated action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Kitzes, J.), dated June 11, 2014, as denied that branch of their motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against the defendant National Amusements, Inc.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The plaintiffs were attending a movie at a multiplex theater owned by the defendant National Amusements, Inc. (hereinafter National), when they allegedly were assaulted by fellow patrons. The plaintiffs subsequently commenced separate actions against National and against the defendant Safe Environment Business Solutions, Inc. (hereinafter Safe Environment), the contractor who provided security services at the multiplex theater on the date of the incident. The actions were consolidated by order of the Supreme Court. The plaintiffs allege that the defendants were negligent in failing to protect them from the assault and failing to provide adequate security. After depositions had been conducted, the defendants jointly moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. The Supreme Court granted that branch of the motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against Safe Environment, but denied that branch of the motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against National.

A property owner must act in a reasonable manner to prevent harm to those on its premises, which includes 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 (see D'Amico v. Christie, 71 N.Y.2d 76, 85, 524 N.Y.S.2d 1, 518 N.E.2d 896 ; Tambriz v. P.G.K. Luncheonette, Inc., 124 A.D.3d 626, 2 N.Y.S.3d 150 ; Rishty v. DOM, Inc., 67 A.D.3d 662, 663, 888 N.Y.S.2d 151 ). However, “the owner of a public establishment has no duty to protect patrons against unforeseeable and unexpected assaults” (Giambruno v. Crazy Donkey Bar & Grill, 65 A.D.3d 1190, 1192, 885 N.Y.S.2d 724 ; see Afanador v. Coney Bath, LLC, 91 A.D.3d 683, 683–684, 936 N.Y.S.2d 312 ; Millan v. AMF Bowling Ctrs., Inc., 38 A.D.3d 860, 860–861, 833 N.Y.S.2d 173 ).

Here, the defendants failed to make a prima facie showing that National was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The defendants' submissions included the deposition testimony of a security guard who...