Green v. Tanyi

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Green v. Tanyi

238 A.D.2d 954, 661 N.Y.S.2d 166, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4822

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

DecidedApril 25, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 238 A.D.2d 954 (Green v. Tanyi) 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

Green v. Tanyi, 238 A.D.2d 954, 661 N.Y.S.2d 166, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4822 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: While at a tavern owned by defendant JEM, Inc. (JEM), plaintiff was struck in the face by an empty beer bottle thrown by defendant Dennis Tanyi. Shortly before, Tanyi, who was intoxicated, had punched one of plaintiff’s friends in the back of the head. Tanyi testified at trial that, after the bartender had witnessed the punch, the bartender told him to calm down and offered him a free bottle of beer, which Tanyi consumed. Tanyi then threw that bottle at plaintiff.

The jury was charged that Tanyi was negligent as a matter of law and that his negligence was a substantial factor in bringing about plaintiffs injuries. Supreme Court also instructed the jury to determine whether the^tavern’s personnel were negligent and, if so, whether their negligence was a substantial factor in causing injury to plaintiff. JEM appeals from the jury verdict finding it and Tanyi liable to plaintiff.

JEM contends that the court erred in denying its request to [955]*955instruct the jury that Tanyi’s intentional act of throwing the bottle may constitute an intervening or superseding cause of plaintiff's injuries. We disagree. "An intervening act may not serve as a superseding cause, and relieve an actor of responsibility, where the risk of the intervening act occurring is the very same risk which renders the actor negligent” (Derdiarian v Felix Contr. Corp., 51 NY2d 308, 316, rearg denied 52 NY2d 784; see, Lamey v Foley, 188 AD2d 157, 165). Here, the risk that Tanyi would injure other patrons through acts of violence was the risk created by the tavern’s failure to control him. (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Erie County, O’Donnell, J.—Negligence.) Present—Denman, P. J., Pine, Callahan, Balio and Fallon, JJ.

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

—Judgment unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: While at a tavern owned by defendant JEM, Inc. (JEM), plaintiff was struck in the face by an empty beer bottle thrown by defendant Dennis Tanyi. Shortly before, Tanyi, who was intoxicated, had punched one of plaintiff’s friends in the back of the head. Tanyi testified at trial that, after the bartender had witnessed the punch, the bartender told him to calm down and offered him a free bottle of beer, which Tanyi consumed. Tanyi then threw that bottle at plaintiff.

The jury was charged that Tanyi was negligent as a matter of law and that his negligence was a substantial factor in bringing about plaintiffs injuries. Supreme Court also instructed the jury to determine whether the^tavern’s personnel were negligent and, if so, whether their negligence was a substantial factor in causing injury to plaintiff. JEM appeals from the jury verdict finding it and Tanyi liable to plaintiff.

JEM contends that the court erred in denying its request to [955]*955instruct the jury that Tanyi’s intentional act of throwing the bottle may constitute an intervening or superseding cause of plaintiff's injuries. We disagree. "An intervening act may not serve as a superseding cause, and relieve an actor of responsibility, where the risk of the intervening act occurring is the very same risk which renders the actor negligent” (Derdiarian v Felix Contr. Corp., 51 NY2d 308, 316, rearg denied 52 NY2d 784; see, Lamey v Foley, 188 AD2d 157, 165). Here, the risk that Tanyi would injure other patrons through acts of violence was the risk created by the tavern’s failure to control him. (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Erie County, O’Donnell, J.—Negligence.) Present—Denman, P. J., Pine, Callahan, Balio and Fallon, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

238 A.D.2d 954, 661 N.Y.S.2d 166, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4822, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/green-v-tanyi-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack