From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Mohamed Hashem v. Manemah Food Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Oct 1, 1996
232 A.D.2d 153 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)

Opinion

October 1, 1996.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Helen Freedman, J.), entered July 6, 1995, dismissing the complaint and bringing up for review an order, same court and Justice, entered on or about the same date, which granted defendant's motion for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, without costs. The appeal from the order is unanimously dismissed, without costs, as subsumed within the appeal from the judgment.

Before: Murphy, P.J., Wallach, Kupferman, Williams and Mazzarelli, JJ.


While defendant was required to exercise reasonable care for the protection of patrons on its premises, the unexpected attack on plaintiff by two unidentified assailants at defendant's grocery store is not a situation that defendant could reasonably have anticipated or prevented, even if it had knowledge of similar prior incidents at or near its location ( Davis v City of New York, 183 AD2d 683; Lindskog v Southland Rest, 160 AD2d 842).


Summaries of

Mohamed Hashem v. Manemah Food Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Oct 1, 1996
232 A.D.2d 153 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)
Case details for

Mohamed Hashem v. Manemah Food Corp.

Case Details

Full title:MOHAMED HASHEM, Appellant, v. MANEMAH FOOD CORP., Respondent

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

Date published: Oct 1, 1996

Citations

232 A.D.2d 153 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)
647 N.Y.S.2d 511

Citing Cases

Varghese v. Singh [2d Dept 1999

The defendants' motion for summary judgment was properly granted. The evidence in the record does not support…

Varghese v. Singh [2d Dept 1999

The defendants' motion for summary judgment was properly granted. The evidence in the record does not support…