Summary
In Haber, where plaintiff and his friend were injured after being attacked by other patrons within the roped-off area in front of the defendant night club's entrance, the court rejected defendant's argument that the incident was unforeseeable, stating that, "the fact that [the security provider employed by the club] had a policy to intervene with `rowdy patrons' provides a reasonable basis for a jury to conclude that the type of altercation plaintiff was involved was foreseeable" (Id.)
Summary of this case from Kandil v. 199 Bowery Rest LLCOpinion
July 27, 2009.
Contracts — Agreement for Benefit of Third Persons — Contract for Security Services.