Tafsiou v. Arms Acres

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Tafsiou v. Arms Acres

123 A.D.3d 807, 998 N.Y.S.2d 434

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

DecidedDecember 10, 2014

Docket2013-09413

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 123 A.D.3d 807 (Tafsiou v. Arms Acres) 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

Tafsiou v. Arms Acres, 123 A.D.3d 807, 998 N.Y.S.2d 434 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Partnow, J.), dated June 27, 2013, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Generally, landowners have a duty to maintain their premises in a reasonably safe condition in view of all the circumstances, including the likelihood of injury to others (see Basso v Miller, 40 NY2d 233, 241 [1976]). “In particular, they have a duty to control the conduct of third persons on their premises when they have the opportunity to control such persons and are reasonably aware of the need for such control” (D’Amico v Christie, 71 NY2d 76, 85 [1987]). A landowner has no duty to protect persons on its premises from unforseen and unexpected assaults, which the landowner could not have reasonably anticipated or prevented (see Afanador v Coney Bath, LLC, 91 AD3d 683, 684 [2012]).

Here, the plaintiff alleged that he was injured on the defendant’s premises when a person who was involved in an altercation with another person fell on him. On its motion for summary judgment the defendant established that it could not have reasonably been expected to anticipate or prevent the subject incident, which occurred suddenly (see Piazza v Regeis Care Ctr., L.L.C., 47 AD3d 551 [2008]; Scalice v King Kullen, 274 AD2d 426 [2000]). The plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact in opposition to the defendant’s establishment, prima facie, of its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendant’s motion for *808 summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Eng, P.J., Cohen, Hinds-Radix and LaSalle, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Partnow, J.), dated June 27, 2013, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Generally, landowners have a duty to maintain their premises in a reasonably safe condition in view of all the circumstances, including the likelihood of injury to others (see Basso v Miller, 40 NY2d 233, 241 [1976]). “In particular, they have a duty to control the conduct of third persons on their premises when they have the opportunity to control such persons and are reasonably aware of the need for such control” (D’Amico v Christie, 71 NY2d 76, 85 [1987]). A landowner has no duty to protect persons on its premises from unforseen and unexpected assaults, which the landowner could not have reasonably anticipated or prevented (see Afanador v Coney Bath, LLC, 91 AD3d 683, 684 [2012]).

Here, the plaintiff alleged that he was injured on the defendant’s premises when a person who was involved in an altercation with another person fell on him. On its motion for summary judgment the defendant established that it could not have reasonably been expected to anticipate or prevent the subject incident, which occurred suddenly (see Piazza v Regeis Care Ctr., L.L.C., 47 AD3d 551 [2008]; Scalice v King Kullen, 274 AD2d 426 [2000]). The plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact in opposition to the defendant’s establishment, prima facie, of its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendant’s motion for *808 summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Eng, P.J., Cohen, Hinds-Radix and LaSalle, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

123 A.D.3d 807, 998 N.Y.S.2d 434, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tafsiou-v-arms-acres-nyappdiv-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack