From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Elkady v. Very Ltd.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jun 24, 2004
8 A.D.3d 197 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)

Opinion

4004.

Decided June 24, 2004.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Diane A. Lebedeff, J.), entered January 21, 2004, which denied defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Molod Spitz DeSantis, P.C., New York (Marcy Sonneborn of counsel), for appellant.

The Law Firm of Harry Issler, PLLC, New York (Daniel J. Dillon of counsel), for respondents.

Before: Nardelli, J.P., Ellerin, Williams, Lerner, Catterson, JJ.


Plaintiffs were injured at defendant's bar when they were attacked by another group of patrons. There is sufficient evidence that a triable issue exists as to whether defendant, through its agents, failed to intervene in a timely fashion in the altercation, in light of conflicting testimony as to the length of time that the incident lasted ( Banayan v. F.W. Woolworth Co., 211 A.D.2d 591, 592).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.


Summaries of

Elkady v. Very Ltd.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jun 24, 2004
8 A.D.3d 197 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)
Case details for

Elkady v. Very Ltd.

Case Details

Full title:CHAFIC A. ELKADY, ET AL., Plaintiffs-Respondents, v. VERY, LTD.…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: Jun 24, 2004

Citations

8 A.D.3d 197 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)
778 N.Y.S.2d 688

Citing Cases

Hedges v. E. River Plaza, LLC

Nunez v Recreation Rooms & Settlement, 229 AD2d 359, 360 (1st Dept 1996); see Banayan v F.W. Woolworth Co.,…