Issurdatt-Hafeez v Hooks & Ladders

[*1] Issurdatt-Hafeez v Hooks & Ladders 2014 NY Slip Op 50273(U) Decided on February 28, 2014 Appellate Term, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.

Decided on February 28, 2014
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, FIRST DEPARTMENT
PRESENT: Lowe, III, P.J., Schoenfeld, Hunter, Jr., JJ
14-066.

Ruth Issurdatt-Hafeez, As parent of Justin Issurdatt- Hafeez, an infant, Plaintiff-Appellant, - -

against

Hooks and Ladders, Defendant-Respondent.

Plaintiff appeals from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County (Arlene P. Bluth, J.), entered May 23, 2012, which granted defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Per Curiam.

Order (Arlene P. Bluth, J.), entered May 23, 2012, affirmed, with $10 costs.

The infant plaintiff, then 17 years old, allegedly sustained injuries during an altercation involving several patrons inside defendant's bar premises. In moving for summary judgment, defendant made a prima facie showing that the assault was not foreseeable and could not have been anticipated or prevented, based in part on plaintiff's own deposition testimony indicating that he was punched or cut in the arm suddenly and unexpectedly by an unidentified assailant soon after the fight broke out (see Afanador v Coney Bath, LLC., 91 AD3d 683 [2012]; Lebron v Loco Noche, LLC., 82 AD3d 669 [2011]; Katekis v Naut, Inc., 60 AD3d 817 [2009]; Vega v Ramirez, 57 AD3d 299 [2008]). In opposition, plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the assault was foreseeable (see Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557 [1987]). Nor was a triable issue raised as to whether defendant failed to provide reasonable security, since plaintiff's willing and voluntary participation in the fight ("I go to punch that guy") severed any causal connection between defendant's alleged negligence in providing security and the injuries (see Vega v Ramirez, 57 AD3d at 300). "Courts in all four judicial departments have found that one who voluntarily participates in a physical fight cannot recover from a party generally charged with ensuring a safe environment" (Carreras v Morrisania Towers Hous. Co. Ltd Partnership, 107 AD3d 618, 621 [2013]).THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT. [*2]
Decision Date: February 28, 2014