Randolph v. Rite Aid of New York, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Randolph v. Rite Aid of New York, Inc.

121 A.D.3d 599, 994 N.Y.S.2d 345

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

DecidedOctober 28, 2014

Docket13334 17379/07

StatusPublished

This text of 121 A.D.3d 599 (Randolph v. Rite Aid of New York, 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

Randolph v. Rite Aid of New York, Inc., 121 A.D.3d 599, 994 N.Y.S.2d 345 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Sharon A.M. Aarons, J.), entered on or about January 8, 2013, which granted defendant Rite Aid of New York, Inc.’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

In this action seeking recovery for personal injuries, plaintiff alleges that on October 13, 2004, after being caught shoplifting at one of defendant’s stores in Manhattan, he was assaulted by a security guard. Plaintiffs first cause of action, the only one at issue on appeal, asserts that defendant’s employees were directly negligent in failing to protect him from the security guard, who was armed with a baseball bat, and that defendant is vicariously liable for its employees’ negligence. There is no indication that the alleged assault by the security guard, who had no history of violence, was foreseeable (N.X. v Cabrini Med. Ctr., 97 NY2d 247, 252 [2002]). Accordingly, the duty to protect was not triggered. Absent an opportunity and duty to protect, there can be no liability for negligence (id. at 253-255).

Concur — Renwick, J.E, Manzanet-Daniels, Feinman and Kapnick, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Sharon A.M. Aarons, J.), entered on or about January 8, 2013, which granted defendant Rite Aid of New York, Inc.’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

In this action seeking recovery for personal injuries, plaintiff alleges that on October 13, 2004, after being caught shoplifting at one of defendant’s stores in Manhattan, he was assaulted by a security guard. Plaintiffs first cause of action, the only one at issue on appeal, asserts that defendant’s employees were directly negligent in failing to protect him from the security guard, who was armed with a baseball bat, and that defendant is vicariously liable for its employees’ negligence. There is no indication that the alleged assault by the security guard, who had no history of violence, was foreseeable (N.X. v Cabrini Med. Ctr., 97 NY2d 247, 252 [2002]). Accordingly, the duty to protect was not triggered. Absent an opportunity and duty to protect, there can be no liability for negligence (id. at 253-255).

Concur — Renwick, J.E, Manzanet-Daniels, Feinman and Kapnick, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

121 A.D.3d 599, 994 N.Y.S.2d 345, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/randolph-v-rite-aid-of-new-york-inc-nyappdiv-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack