From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Arcuri v. Sequin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Nov 19, 1997
244 A.D.2d 972 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)

Opinion

November 19, 1997

(Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Oneida County, Shaheen, J. — Summary Judgment.)

Present — Pine, J. P., Lawton, Wisner, Balio and Fallon, JJ.


Order unanimously reversed on the law without costs, motion granted and complaint against defendant Herkimer Petroleum Products, Inc., doing business as Uptown Nice Easy, dismissed. Memorandum: Supreme Court erred in denying the motion of defendant Herkimer Petroleum Products, Inc., doing business as Uptown Nice Easy (Herkimer), for summary judgment dismissing the complaint against it. Plaintiff alleges that defendant Scott Sequin struck him with a baseball bat while he was in the parking lot of Herkimer's store. Herkimer "had a duty to take reasonable precautions to secure its [parking lot] if it knew or had reason to know from past experience"`that there [was] a likelihood of conduct on the part of third persons * * * which [was] likely to endanger the safety"'" of visitors to the premises (Dyer v Norstar Bank, 186 A.D.2d 1083, lv denied 81 N.Y.2d 703, quoting Nallan v. Helmsley-Spear, Inc., 50 N.Y.2d 507, 519; see also, Golombek v. Marine Midland Bank, 193 A.D.2d 1113, 1114). Herkimer established as a matter of law that it was unaware of any facts that would put it on notice that an assault would occur in its parking lot. Plaintiff failed to raise an issue of fact whether Herkimer had any knowledge of prior incidents or criminal conduct occurring there. Thus, Herkimer was entitled to summary judgment on the ground that it had no duty to take protective measures because it neither knew nor had reason to know that there was a likelihood of intentionally harmful conduct by third persons that was likely to endanger the safety of plaintiff (see, Golombek v Marine Midland Bank, supra, at 1114).


Summaries of

Arcuri v. Sequin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Nov 19, 1997
244 A.D.2d 972 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)
Case details for

Arcuri v. Sequin

Case Details

Full title:NICHOLAS L. ARCURI, III, Respondent, v. SCOTT SEQUIN, Defendant, and…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department

Date published: Nov 19, 1997

Citations

244 A.D.2d 972 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)
665 N.Y.S.2d 157

Citing Cases

Lomedico v. Cassillo

Thus, even where there is an extensive history of criminal conduct on the premises, the possessor cannot be…