McAndrew v. Pierre Hotel

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

McAndrew v. Pierre Hotel

262 A.D.2d 193, 693 N.Y.S.2d 20, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7426

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

DecidedJune 22, 1999

StatusPublished

This text of 262 A.D.2d 193 (McAndrew v. Pierre Hotel) 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

McAndrew v. Pierre Hotel, 262 A.D.2d 193, 693 N.Y.S.2d 20, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7426 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Lorraine Miller, J.), entered on or about June 12, 1998, which granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

We agree with the motion court that defendant hotel’s duty to keep its building secure against foreseeable criminal activity did not extend to plaintiff, who, intending to patronize defendant’s café, was assaulted on a public sidewalk just as he was about to enter the premises (see, Waters v New York City Hous. Auth., 69 NY2d 225). Absent a duty, it does not avail plaintiff that the canopy defendant erected over its entrance may have made the crime reasonably foreseeable (see, supra, at 231; Krinick v Sharac Rest., 144 AD2d 440, lv denied 73 NY2d 707). We also reject plaintiffs argument that if defendant did not owe him a duty of security as a business guest, then such a duty was owed to him as a member of the public because of the special use that defendant made of the sidewalk with its canopy. As the motion court indicated, the special use doctrine has up to now been applied only in trip and fall cases, and we decline to extend it so as to impose a duty on abutting landowners to keep a public sidewalk near a building entrance, no matter how configured, secure against criminal activity. We have considered plaintiffs other arguments and find them to be unavailing. Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Williams, Tom, Wallach and Buckley, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Lorraine Miller, J.), entered on or about June 12, 1998, which granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

We agree with the motion court that defendant hotel’s duty to keep its building secure against foreseeable criminal activity did not extend to plaintiff, who, intending to patronize defendant’s café, was assaulted on a public sidewalk just as he was about to enter the premises (see, Waters v New York City Hous. Auth., 69 NY2d 225). Absent a duty, it does not avail plaintiff that the canopy defendant erected over its entrance may have made the crime reasonably foreseeable (see, supra, at 231; Krinick v Sharac Rest., 144 AD2d 440, lv denied 73 NY2d 707). We also reject plaintiffs argument that if defendant did not owe him a duty of security as a business guest, then such a duty was owed to him as a member of the public because of the special use that defendant made of the sidewalk with its canopy. As the motion court indicated, the special use doctrine has up to now been applied only in trip and fall cases, and we decline to extend it so as to impose a duty on abutting landowners to keep a public sidewalk near a building entrance, no matter how configured, secure against criminal activity. We have considered plaintiffs other arguments and find them to be unavailing. Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Williams, Tom, Wallach and Buckley, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

262 A.D.2d 193, 693 N.Y.S.2d 20, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7426, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcandrew-v-pierre-hotel-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack