Chini v. Wendcentral Corporation Inc.

1 Citing case

  1. Hammond v. Lincoln Technical Inst. Inc.

    10-CV-1933 (JBW) (JMA) (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 30, 2012)   Cited 6 times

    Because the machinery was, for its very purpose, subject to manipulation by numerous other students, it cannot be said that the machinery was within defendant's exclusive control.See Dermattossian, 67 N.Y.2d at 228 (the fact that a grab handle on a city bus was continuously available for use by defendant's passengers indicated that defendant was not in exclusive control of the handle); Chini v. Wendcentral Corp., Inc., 692 N.Y.S.2d 533, 533 (4th Dep't 1999) (the fact that defendant restaurant's customers had continuous access to a chair in the restaurant meant that defendant did not have exclusive control of the chair). Plaintiff argues that defendant had a policy of disciplining students who touched or operated the equipment without express permission, and therefore the equipment was in defendant's exclusive control.