From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Scalice v. Kullen

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jul 12, 2000
274 A.D.2d 426 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)

Opinion

Argued May 26, 2000.

July 12, 2000.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Doyle, J.), dated January 5, 2000, which granted the motion of the defendant King Kullen for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it.

Portnoy Portnoy (Sweetbaum Sweetbaum, Lake Success, NY [Marshall D. Sweetbaum] of counsel), for appellant.

Kennedy Associates, P.C., Uniondale, N Y (Christopher F. Mansfield and Megan Gillen of counsel), for respondent.

Before: LAWRENCE J. BRACKEN, J.P., DANIEL W. JOY, WILLIAM D. FRIEDMANN, ROBERT W. SCHMIDT, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff was injured when another customer attacked her after a verbal altercation with a store clerk in the defendant King Kullen's supermarket. While the owner of a public establishment has the duty to control the conduct of persons on its premises when it has the opportunity to do so and is reasonably aware of the need for such control (see, D'Amico v. Christie, 71 N.Y.2d 76; Lindskog v. Southland Rest., 160 A.D.2d 842), it has no duty to protect customers against an unforseen and unexpected assault (see, Scotti v. W.M. Amusements, 226 A.D.2d 522).

Here, the assault on the plaintiff was sudden and unexpected as it followed an argument between the customer and the clerk, not the plaintiff. There was no evidence presented to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the risk of the assault against the plaintiff was foreseeable. There is no proof of any escalating situation between the plaintiff and her assailant such that the respondent's employee should have reasonably anticipated or prevented the attack (see, Woolard v. New Mohegan Diner, 258 A.D.2d 578; Languilli v. Argonaut Rest. Diner, 232 A.D.2d 375). The attack upon the plaintiff was a spontaneous and unexpected criminal act of a third party for which the respondent may not be held liable (see, Pulitano v. Suffolk Manor Caterers, 245 A.D.2d 279; Scotti v. W.M. Amusements, supra; Lindskog v. Southland Rest., supra).


Summaries of

Scalice v. Kullen

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jul 12, 2000
274 A.D.2d 426 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
Case details for

Scalice v. Kullen

Case Details

Full title:LUCETTA SCALICE, APPELLANT, v. KING KULLEN, RESPONDENT, ET AL., DEFENDANT

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

Date published: Jul 12, 2000

Citations

274 A.D.2d 426 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
710 N.Y.S.2d 632

Citing Cases

Faust v. East Wind Caterers, LLC

Based on the deposition testimony of the plaintiff and Mr. Ambrosio, the altercation and/or assault involving…

Wang v. Lang

s a likelihood of conduct on the part of third persons . . . which is likely to endanger the safety of the…