Pierre v. McDonald's Corp.

Opinion

Pierre v McDonald's Corp.

2026 NY Slip Op 05121

August 26, 2026

Appellate Division, Second Department

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

This decision is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Fritzner J. Pierre, appellant,

v

McDonald's Corporation, et al., respondents.

Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department

Decided on August 26, 2026

2024-13515, (Index No. 716641/20)

Angela G. Iannacci, J.P.

Deborah A. Dowling

Lourdes M. Ventura

Donna-Marie E. Golia, JJ.

Davidoff Law, P.C., Fresh Meadows, NY (Mark Peter Getzoni of counsel), for appellant.

Stonberg, Hickman & Pavloff LLP, New York, NY (Kevin A. Hickman of counsel), for respondents.

[*1]

DECISION & ORDER

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Robert I. Caloras, J.), entered October 29, 2024. The order granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff allegedly was injured when he was assaulted by another customer at a McDonald's restaurant owned and operated by the defendants. The plaintiff commenced this personal injury action, alleging, inter alia, that the defendants negligently failed to protect him from the assault. After discovery, the defendants moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. In an order entered October 29, 2024, the Supreme Court granted the defendants' motion. The plaintiff appeals.

"The elements of negligence are (1) a duty owed by the defendant to the plaintiff, (2) a breach thereof, and (3) injury proximately resulting therefrom" (Campolongo v DR & RD, Inc., 241 AD3d 1417, 1418 [internal quotation marks omitted]). "While landowners in general have a duty to act in a reasonable manner to prevent harm to those on their property, an owner's duty to control the conduct of persons on its premises arises only when it has the opportunity to control such persons and is reasonably aware of the need for such control" (Bisignano v Raabe, 128 AD3d 751, 752 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Pink v Rome Youth Hockey Assn., Inc., 28 NY3d 994, 997-998). "Thus, the owner of a public establishment has no duty to protect patrons against unforeseeable and unexpected assaults" (Bisignano v Raabe, 128 AD3d at 752; see Campolongo v DR & RD, Inc., 241 AD3d at 1419).

Here, the defendants submitted evidence demonstrating, prima facie, that they had no knowledge of prior similar incidents which would have made the subject assault reasonably predictable and that the assault on the plaintiff was not otherwise reasonably foreseeable under the surrounding circumstances (see Campolongo v DR & RD, Inc., 241 AD3d at 1419; King v Diplomat Hospitality Group, LLC, 218 AD3d 454, 455; Kranenberg v TKRS Pub, Inc., 99 AD3d 767, 768). Further, the defendants demonstrated, prima facie, that an employee's act of engaging in an argument [*2]with, and using offensive language toward, the plaintiff's assailant was not the proximate cause of the plaintiff's injuries, as the sole proximate cause of the plaintiff's injuries was the assault upon him (see Gaige v Kepler, 303 AD2d 626, 627; Fariello v City of New York Bd. of Educ., 199 AD2d 461, 462). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see Campolongo v DR & RD, Inc., 241 AD3d at 1418).

Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

In light of our determination, we need not reach the parties' remaining contentions.

IANNACCI, J.P., DOWLING, VENTURA and GOLIA, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Darrell M. Joseph

Clerk of the Court