Bilias v. Gaslight, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Bilias v. Gaslight, Inc.

100 A.D.3d 533, 954 N.Y.S.2d 88

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedNovember 20, 2012

StatusPublished

This text of 100 A.D.3d 533 (Bilias v. Gaslight, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bilias v. Gaslight, Inc., 100 A.D.3d 533, 954 N.Y.S.2d 88 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Paul Wooten, J.), entered October 17, 2011, which denied the motion of defendant Gaslight, Inc. for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against it, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Gaslight failed to establish its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law in this action for personal injuries allegedly sustained by plaintiff when he was attacked by defendant Sanchez after being forcibly escorted out of Gaslight’s bar. The conflicting testimony contained in the record raises triable issues, including whether Sanchez was an employee of Gaslight, whether the acts complained of were excessive, and whether such acts were within the scope of Sanchez’s employment and [534]*534in furtherance of Gaslight’s business (see Sims v Bergamo, 3 NY2d 531, 534-535 [1957]; Babikian v Nikki Midtown, LLC, 60 AD3d 470 [1st Dept 2009]). Concur — Mazzarelli, J.E, Sweeny, Moskowitz, Renwick and Freedman, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Paul Wooten, J.), entered October 17, 2011, which denied the motion of defendant Gaslight, Inc. for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against it, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Gaslight failed to establish its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law in this action for personal injuries allegedly sustained by plaintiff when he was attacked by defendant Sanchez after being forcibly escorted out of Gaslight’s bar. The conflicting testimony contained in the record raises triable issues, including whether Sanchez was an employee of Gaslight, whether the acts complained of were excessive, and whether such acts were within the scope of Sanchez’s employment and [534]*534in furtherance of Gaslight’s business (see Sims v Bergamo, 3 NY2d 531, 534-535 [1957]; Babikian v Nikki Midtown, LLC, 60 AD3d 470 [1st Dept 2009]). Concur — Mazzarelli, J.E, Sweeny, Moskowitz, Renwick and Freedman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

100 A.D.3d 533, 954 N.Y.S.2d 88, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bilias-v-gaslight-inc-nyappdiv-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack