Burgess v. Garfield 49th Street, Inc.

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Burgess v. Garfield 49th Street, Inc.

1 Misc. 2d 60, 149 N.Y.S.2d 55, 1955 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2143

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedDecember 15, 1955

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 1 Misc. 2d 60 (Burgess v. Garfield 49th Street, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Burgess v. Garfield 49th Street, Inc., 1 Misc. 2d 60, 149 N.Y.S.2d 55, 1955 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2143 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1955).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Defendant was under a duty to use ordinary care to protect the patrons of its restaurant from injury from causes reasonably to be anticipated. (See Schubart v. Hotel Astor, 168 Misc. 431, affd. 255 App. Div. 1012, affd. 281 N. Y. 597; also see, Smith v. White Tower Management Corp., 129 N. Y. S. 2d 545, and cases there cited.) However, it was not expected to anticipate the unusual and abnormal. (Futterer v. Saratoga Assn., 262 App. Div. 675.) The sudden and unexpected hurling of a sugar bowl by an unruly patron during an altercation was not such an act which defendant could fairly and reasonably be expected to have foreseen or guarded against. No actionable negligence on its part was otherwise established.

The judgment should be unanimously reversed, upon the law and facts, with $30 costs to defendant, and complaint dismissed, with appropriate costs in the court below.

Kleineeld, Pette and Di G-iovanna, JJ., concur.

Judgment reversed, etc.

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

Per Curiam.

Defendant was under a duty to use ordinary care to protect the patrons of its restaurant from injury from causes reasonably to be anticipated. (See Schubart v. Hotel Astor, 168 Misc. 431, affd. 255 App. Div. 1012, affd. 281 N. Y. 597; also see, Smith v. White Tower Management Corp., 129 N. Y. S. 2d 545, and cases there cited.) However, it was not expected to anticipate the unusual and abnormal. (Futterer v. Saratoga Assn., 262 App. Div. 675.) The sudden and unexpected hurling of a sugar bowl by an unruly patron during an altercation was not such an act which defendant could fairly and reasonably be expected to have foreseen or guarded against. No actionable negligence on its part was otherwise established.

The judgment should be unanimously reversed, upon the law and facts, with $30 costs to defendant, and complaint dismissed, with appropriate costs in the court below.

Kleineeld, Pette and Di G-iovanna, JJ., concur.

Judgment reversed, etc.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 Misc. 2d 60, 149 N.Y.S.2d 55, 1955 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2143, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/burgess-v-garfield-49th-street-inc-nyappterm-1955.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack