Boltz v. National Amusements, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Boltz v. National Amusements, Inc.

227 A.D.2d 363, 642 N.Y.S.2d 90, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4929

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

DecidedMay 6, 1996

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 227 A.D.2d 363 (Boltz v. National Amusements, 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

Boltz v. National Amusements, Inc., 227 A.D.2d 363, 642 N.Y.S.2d 90, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4929 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Doyle, J.), dated March 20, 1995, which granted the separate motions of the defendants National Amusements, Inc., and Aero Investigations and Security Services, Inc., for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs to the respondent National Amusements, Inc., payable by the appellant.

The Supreme Court properly granted the motion of the defendant National Amusements, Inc. (hereinafter National) for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it. The plaintiff failed to present evidence in admissible form creating a genuine question of fact regarding the foreseeability of the assault perpetrated on him by a third person while in the lobby of the cinema owned and operated by National. Therefore, National cannot be liable to the plaintiff for its failure, if any, to take minimal security precautions to protect its patrons from criminal acts of third persons (see, Nallan v Helmsley-Spear, Inc., 50 NY2d 507, 518-519; Fontana v Falides Assocs., 202 AD2d 631; Provenzano v Roslyn Gardens Tenants Corp., 190 AD2d 718, 720).

The defendant Aero Investigations and Security Services, Inc. (hereinafter Aero) was also entitled to summary judgment dismissing the plaintiff’s complaint insofar as asserted against it. There was no common-law duty on the part of Aero to protect the plaintiff, and the security agreement between Aero and National did not confer a direct contractual benefit on the. plaintiff to protect him from physical injury (see, Guarcello v Rouse SI Shopping Ctr., 204 AD2d 685; Abramian v Travelers Hotel Assocs., 203 AD2d 398; Buckley v I.B.I. Sec. Serv., 157 AD2d 645). Balletta, J. P., Sullivan, Santucci and Altman, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Doyle, J.), dated March 20, 1995, which granted the separate motions of the defendants National Amusements, Inc., and Aero Investigations and Security Services, Inc., for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs to the respondent National Amusements, Inc., payable by the appellant.

The Supreme Court properly granted the motion of the defendant National Amusements, Inc. (hereinafter National) for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it. The plaintiff failed to present evidence in admissible form creating a genuine question of fact regarding the foreseeability of the assault perpetrated on him by a third person while in the lobby of the cinema owned and operated by National. Therefore, National cannot be liable to the plaintiff for its failure, if any, to take minimal security precautions to protect its patrons from criminal acts of third persons (see, Nallan v Helmsley-Spear, Inc., 50 NY2d 507, 518-519; Fontana v Falides Assocs., 202 AD2d 631; Provenzano v Roslyn Gardens Tenants Corp., 190 AD2d 718, 720).

The defendant Aero Investigations and Security Services, Inc. (hereinafter Aero) was also entitled to summary judgment dismissing the plaintiff’s complaint insofar as asserted against it. There was no common-law duty on the part of Aero to protect the plaintiff, and the security agreement between Aero and National did not confer a direct contractual benefit on the. plaintiff to protect him from physical injury (see, Guarcello v Rouse SI Shopping Ctr., 204 AD2d 685; Abramian v Travelers Hotel Assocs., 203 AD2d 398; Buckley v I.B.I. Sec. Serv., 157 AD2d 645). Balletta, J. P., Sullivan, Santucci and Altman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

227 A.D.2d 363, 642 N.Y.S.2d 90, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4929, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/boltz-v-national-amusements-inc-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack