Branham v. Loews Orpheum Cinemas, Inc.

New York Court of Appeals

Branham v. Loews Orpheum Cinemas, Inc.

866 N.E.2d 448, 8 N.Y.3d 931, 834 N.Y.S.2d 503

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedApril 3, 2007

StatusPublished

Cited by94 cases

This text of 866 N.E.2d 448 (Branham v. Loews Orpheum Cinemas, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Branham v. Loews Orpheum Cinemas, Inc., 866 N.E.2d 448, 8 N.Y.3d 931, 834 N.Y.S.2d 503 (N.Y. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The Appellate Division order should be affirmed with costs and the certified question not answered upon the ground that it is unnecessary. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to plaintiff, as we must on defendant’s motion for summary judgment (see Fundamental Portfolio Advisors, Inc. v Tocqueville Asset Mgt., L.P., 7 NY3d 96 [2006]), defendant Loews demonstrated its entitlement to summary judgment dismissing the complaint against it. In opposition, plaintiff failed to adduce sufficient evidence that Loews had actual or constructive notice of the transient obstruction — a boy sitting in the aisle — or that the lighting in the theater was inadequate (see Piacquadio v Recine Realty Corp., 84 NY2d 967 [1994]; Gordon v American Museum of Natural History, 67 NY2d 836 [1986]; see also Gilson v Metropolitan Opera, 5 NY3d 574 [2005]).

Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Ciparick, Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott and Jones concur in memorandum.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.11), order affirmed, etc.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The Appellate Division order should be affirmed with costs and the certified question not answered upon the ground that it is unnecessary. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to plaintiff, as we must on defendant’s motion for summary judgment (see Fundamental Portfolio Advisors, Inc. v Tocqueville Asset Mgt., L.P., 7 NY3d 96 [2006]), defendant Loews demonstrated its entitlement to summary judgment dismissing the complaint against it. In opposition, plaintiff failed to adduce sufficient evidence that Loews had actual or constructive notice of the transient obstruction — a boy sitting in the aisle — or that the lighting in the theater was inadequate (see Piacquadio v Recine Realty Corp., 84 NY2d 967 [1994]; Gordon v American Museum of Natural History, 67 NY2d 836 [1986]; see also Gilson v Metropolitan Opera, 5 NY3d 574 [2005]).

Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Ciparick, Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott and Jones concur in memorandum.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.11), order affirmed, etc.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

866 N.E.2d 448, 8 N.Y.3d 931, 834 N.Y.S.2d 503, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/branham-v-loews-orpheum-cinemas-inc-ny-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack