Cyzio v. Rihga International U.S.A., Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Cyzio v. Rihga International U.S.A., Inc.

244 A.D.2d 198, 664 N.Y.S.2d 15, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11346

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

DecidedNovember 13, 1997

StatusPublished

This text of 244 A.D.2d 198 (Cyzio v. Rihga International U.S.A., 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

Cyzio v. Rihga International U.S.A., Inc., 244 A.D.2d 198, 664 N.Y.S.2d 15, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11346 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Emily Goodman, J.), entered April 8, 1997, which denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

In light of the circumstances of the assault upon plaintiff, a guest at defendant’s hotel, the record of prior security reports, the location of the hotel, defendant’s policy of allowing well-dressed persons to freely enter the hotel without challenge during the late night and early morning hours and the affidavit of plaintiff’s security expert, it cannot be said that the assault was unforseeable as a matter of law. This record raises issues of fact as to whether defendant breached its duty to take minimal precautions to protect its guests from this type of criminal conduct, and, if so, whether such breach was the proximate cause of plaintiff’s injuries (see, Kender v Taj Mahal Hotel, 234 AD2d 518). Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Milonas, Wallach, Williams and Tom, JJ. [See, 172 Misc 2d 363.]

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Emily Goodman, J.), entered April 8, 1997, which denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

In light of the circumstances of the assault upon plaintiff, a guest at defendant’s hotel, the record of prior security reports, the location of the hotel, defendant’s policy of allowing well-dressed persons to freely enter the hotel without challenge during the late night and early morning hours and the affidavit of plaintiff’s security expert, it cannot be said that the assault was unforseeable as a matter of law. This record raises issues of fact as to whether defendant breached its duty to take minimal precautions to protect its guests from this type of criminal conduct, and, if so, whether such breach was the proximate cause of plaintiff’s injuries (see, Kender v Taj Mahal Hotel, 234 AD2d 518). Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Milonas, Wallach, Williams and Tom, JJ. [See, 172 Misc 2d 363.]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

244 A.D.2d 198, 664 N.Y.S.2d 15, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11346, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cyzio-v-rihga-international-usa-inc-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack