From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Ullrich v. Bronx House Cmty. Ctr.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Oct 9, 2012
99 A.D.3d 472 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012)

Opinion

2012-10-9

Adam ULLRICH, Plaintiff–Respondent, v. BRONX HOUSE COMMUNITY CENTER, et al., Defendants–Appellants.

Wenick & Finger, P.C., New York (Frank J. Wenick of counsel), for appellants. Wingate, Russotti & Shapiro, LLP, New York (William P. Hepner of counsel), for respondent.



Wenick & Finger, P.C., New York (Frank J. Wenick of counsel), for appellants. Wingate, Russotti & Shapiro, LLP, New York (William P. Hepner of counsel), for respondent.
SWEENY, J.P., CATTERSON, ACOSTA, FREEDMAN, ROMÁN, JJ.

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (John A. Barone, J.), entered January 12, 2012, which denied defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion granted. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly.

Dismissal of the complaint is warranted in this action where plaintiff was injured during a basketball game at defendants' facility, when another player punched him in the jaw. Plaintiff and his father both testified that the assault was unprovoked and unanticipated, and that there was no warning of an impending assault. Thus, by plaintiff's own account, the assault occurred in such a short span of time that even the most intense supervision could not have prevented it ( see e.g. Espino v. New York City Bd. of Educ., 80 A.D.3d 496, 915 N.Y.S.2d 66 [2011],lv. denied17 N.Y.3d 709, 930 N.Y.S.2d 554, 954 N.E.2d 1180 [2011] ).

Plaintiff's father testified that he observed a dispute on the basketball court involving the assailant and other club members several months earlier. However, plaintiff failed to show that the notice was sufficiently specific for defendants to have reasonably anticipated the assault upon plaintiff ( see Kamara v. City of New York, 93 A.D.3d 449, 450, 940 N.Y.S.2d 53 [2012] ). Defendants' failure to terminate the assailant's club membership after the earlier incident was not the proximate cause of the assault, which was an intentional and unforeseeable act of a third party ( see Sugarman v. Equinox Holdings, Inc., 73 A.D.3d 654, 655, 901 N.Y.S.2d 615 [2010] ).

The Decision and Order of this Court entered herein on June 19, 2012, is hereby recalled and vacated ( see M–3073 decided simultaneously herewith).


Summaries of

Ullrich v. Bronx House Cmty. Ctr.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Oct 9, 2012
99 A.D.3d 472 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012)
Case details for

Ullrich v. Bronx House Cmty. Ctr.

Case Details

Full title:Adam ULLRICH, Plaintiff–Respondent, v. BRONX HOUSE COMMUNITY CENTER, et…

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.

Date published: Oct 9, 2012

Citations

99 A.D.3d 472 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012)
99 A.D.3d 472
2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 6730

Citing Cases

S. G. v. Harlem Vill. Acad. Charter Sch.

Plaintiff theorizes that Mission's staff should have observed the conduct of these children and intervened to…

Gomes v. Boy Scouts of Am.

Plaintiff's claim that BSA may be held liable for negligent supervision based on his claim that he was…