From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Murphy v. Chaos

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Feb 16, 2006
26 A.D.3d 231 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006)

Opinion

7862.

February 16, 2006.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Louis B. York, J.), entered November 12, 2004, which granted defendants-respondents' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against them, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Julien Schlesinger, P.C., New York (Michael S. Schlesinger of counsel), for appellant.

French Rafter, LLP, New York (Joseph A. French of counsel), for respondents.

Before: Buckley, P.J., Sullivan, Williams, Gonzalez and Catterson, JJ. Concur.


No triable factual issue is raised as to whether defendant Kallimini was intoxicated or impaired at the time of his altercation with plaintiff, much less as to whether defendant nightclub Chaos furnished Kallimini with alcohol or caused him to become intoxicated prior to the altercation. Accordingly, summary judgment was properly granted dismissing plaintiff's claims against Chaos under General Obligations Law §§ 11-100 and 11-101 ( see Sherman v. Robinson, 80 NY2d 483, 487-488). Nor was Chaos under a duty to protect plaintiff during the sudden, brief assault, which took place on the public sidewalk some 15 feet from the club entrance as patrons left the club at the end of the night, particularly since there is no evidence that anything transpired inside the club which might have put the club on notice that there was a risk of such an altercation ( see Del Bourgo v. 138 Sidelines Corp., 208 AD2d 795, 796, lv dismissed 85 NY2d 924).


Summaries of

Murphy v. Chaos

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Feb 16, 2006
26 A.D.3d 231 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006)
Case details for

Murphy v. Chaos

Case Details

Full title:JOSEPH MURPHY, Appellant, v. CHAOS et al., Respondents, et al., Defendants

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

Date published: Feb 16, 2006

Citations

26 A.D.3d 231 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006)
2006 N.Y. Slip Op. 1223
810 N.Y.S.2d 39

Citing Cases

Zambrano v. Babola

It is also Rock Candy's burden to prove they adequately supervised and controlled the patrons consuming…

TOTTENVILLE COMMONS, LLC v. ALEA N.A. INS.

The triable issues of fact precluding summary judgment in the instant action include, among other things,…