Varghese v. Singh

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Varghese v. Singh

265 A.D.2d 322, 696 N.Y.S.2d 196, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9636

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

DecidedOctober 4, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 265 A.D.2d 322 (Varghese v. Singh) 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

Varghese v. Singh, 265 A.D.2d 322, 696 N.Y.S.2d 196, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9636 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Rappaport, J.), dated June 19, 1998, which granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff Varghese Varghese (hereinafter the plaintiff) was shot during an attempted robbery at a grocery store owned by the defendant Faqir Singh. The plaintiff, who was the only customer in the store when the robbery began, initially refused the robbers’ demand for his gold bracelet and then yelled for help when another customer entered the store. As the robbers fled, one of them fired his gun, wounding the plaintiff in the leg.

The defendants’ motion for summary judgment was properly granted. The evidence in the record does not support the plaintiffs’ contention that the store owner had a duty to provide additional protective measures to insure the safety of his customers (see, Amarante v Rothschild, 171 AD2d 633; see also, Hashem v Manemah Food Corp., 232 AD2d 153; Hechmeh v 18th Ave. Custom Jewelry Ctr., 226 AD2d 587). Furthermore, the plaintiffs did not demonstrate that the store owner’s alleged negligence in failing to provide additional protective measures was “a substantial causative factor in the sequence of events that led to [his] injury” (Nallan v Helmsley-Spear, Inc., 50 NY2d 507, 520; see also, Ospina v City of New York, 214 AD2d 551; Mkrtchyan v 61st Woodside Assocs., 209 AD2d 490). S. Miller, J. P., O’Brien, Friedmann and Florio, 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, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Rappaport, J.), dated June 19, 1998, which granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff Varghese Varghese (hereinafter the plaintiff) was shot during an attempted robbery at a grocery store owned by the defendant Faqir Singh. The plaintiff, who was the only customer in the store when the robbery began, initially refused the robbers’ demand for his gold bracelet and then yelled for help when another customer entered the store. As the robbers fled, one of them fired his gun, wounding the plaintiff in the leg.

The defendants’ motion for summary judgment was properly granted. The evidence in the record does not support the plaintiffs’ contention that the store owner had a duty to provide additional protective measures to insure the safety of his customers (see, Amarante v Rothschild, 171 AD2d 633; see also, Hashem v Manemah Food Corp., 232 AD2d 153; Hechmeh v 18th Ave. Custom Jewelry Ctr., 226 AD2d 587). Furthermore, the plaintiffs did not demonstrate that the store owner’s alleged negligence in failing to provide additional protective measures was “a substantial causative factor in the sequence of events that led to [his] injury” (Nallan v Helmsley-Spear, Inc., 50 NY2d 507, 520; see also, Ospina v City of New York, 214 AD2d 551; Mkrtchyan v 61st Woodside Assocs., 209 AD2d 490). S. Miller, J. P., O’Brien, Friedmann and Florio, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

265 A.D.2d 322, 696 N.Y.S.2d 196, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9636, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/varghese-v-singh-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack