Quigley v Nederlander Org., Inc.

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Quigley v Nederlander Org., Inc. 2017 NY Slip Op 32018(U) September 19, 2017 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: 154474/2014 Judge: David B. Cohen Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip Op 30001(U), are republished from various state and local government websites. These include the New York State Unified Court System's E-Courts Service, and the Bronx County Clerk's office. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication. [* 1] INDEX NO. 154474/2014 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 122 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/26/2017 '~ SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK NEW YORK COUNTY ' PRESENT: 58 PART HON. DAVID BENJAMIN COHEN Justice -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------X BARBARA QUIGLEY, 154474/2014 INDEX NO. Plaintiff, 4/20/2016 MOTION DATE MOTION SEQ. NO .. ___ _ _ 0_0_3 -vNEDERLANDER ORGANIZATION, INC., CONSOLIDATED EDISON OF NEW YORK, INC., MECC CONTRACTING INC. DECISION AND ORDER Defendant. -------~---------------------------------------------------------------------J-----X i The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107,:108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121 1 were read on this application to/for Upo~ SUMMARY; JUDGMENT(AFTER JOIN DER the foregoing documents, it is Plaintiff was going to see the Broadway show Motown: The Musical at defendant 1 Nederlander's Lunt-Fontanne Theatre located at 205 ' W46th St, New York, NY 10036. The ' ··i .1 theatre is located on the north side of 46th Street betw:en Broadway and Eighth Avenue. As she appr6ached the theatre, there was a line to enter and she was allegedly told by a theatre employee to go: the back of the line. Plaintiff and her group of fi~iends proceeded west down the north side of 46th street. Plaintiff alleges that because the crowd.was large and the sidewalk was full of people she was did not have a clear direct path to the end of the line. In an attempt to get to the end Of the line plaintiff and her group stepped off the curb several times to avoid people in her atte1~pt to proceed. Plaintiff was following directly behind her friend and, at one point, plaintiff 154474/2014 QUIGLEY, BARBARA vs. NEDERLANDER ORGANIZATION Motion No. 003 - 1 of 5 Page 1 of 5 [* 2] INDEX NO. 154474/2014 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 122 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/26/2017 stepped off the sidewalk onto the street where she stepped on a metal plate that had been placed for c~nstruction. Plaintiff alleges that she tripped on the plate and was injured. Plaintiff alleges two c_auses of action against defendant Nederlander: (1) negligence due to improper control over the crowd, and (2) negligent supervision of the usher who did not control the crowd and did not I warn plaintiff of the dangerous condition of the large crowd. Summary judgment is a drastic remedy that should not be granted where there exists a I triable issue of fact (Integrated Logistics Consultants v. Fidata Corp., 131 AD2d 338 [1st Dept 1987]; Ratner v. Elovitz; 198 AD2d 184 [1st Dept 1993]). On a summary judgment motion, the I court must view all evidence in a light most favorable to the non-moving party (Rodriguez v. Parkchester South Condominium Inc., 178 AD2d 231 [1st Dept 1991 ]). The moving party must shov..: that as a matter of law it is entitled to judgment [Alvarez v. Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320 324 [1986]). The proponent of a summary judgment motion must make a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, tendering sufficient evidence to eliminate any material issues of fact from the case (Wine grad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851 [1985]). After the moving party has demonstrated its prima facie entitlement to summary judgment, the party opposing the motion must demonstrate by admissible evidence the existence of a factual issue I requiring a trial (Zuckerman v. City of New York, 49 NY2d 557 [1980]). As a threshold issue, this Court could not find and neither counsel could provide the Court with any State or City statute or regulation relating to what a store/theatre or similar entity's obligations are with respect to controlling an anticipated crowd. This is distinct from a I land?wner' s duty of care once inside the premises, or. if the area is subject to special use (Sachar v Columbia Pictures Indus., Inc., 129 AD3d 420 [1st Dept 2015][theatre company owed a duty I of care to provide appropriate crowd control for people on their property for a screening]). Thus, 154474/2014 QUIGLEY, BARBARA vs. NEDERLANDER ORGANIZATION Motion No. 003 2 of 5 Page 2 of 5 [* 3] INDEX NO. 154474/2014 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 122 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/26/2017 the question here is what are the obligations of such an entity while people are waiting on a line to get into the premises but not on the landowner's property. When a plaintiffs negligence claim is premised on the theory that her injuries were caused by overcrowding and inadequate crowd control, the plaintiff must establish that "[she] was unable to find a place of safety or that plaintiffs free movement was restricted due to the ! alleged overcrowding (Alexopoulos v Metro. Transp. Auth., 41AD3d171 [1st Dept 2007]; Greenberg v Sterling Doubleday Enterprises, L.P., 240 AD2d 702 [2d Dept 1997]; Benanti v Port Auth. of New York and New Jersey, 176 AD2d 549 [1st Dept 1991]). In Alexopoulos v Metro. Transp. Auth., summary judgment was granted to defendant because "[t]he ) uncol1tradicted testimony of a witness indicated that the accident was caused solely by decedent's own Conduct in attempting to maneuver his way throu:gh a large but orderly crowd of subway riders who were waiting to get onto the exit escalator when he miscalculated the distance to the . . end 6f the platform and fell onto the tracks" (id. at 17l). : Here, it is alleged that plaintiff and her large g~oup decided to walk to the back of the line into a large crowd. The Court notes that there is no indication that the entire width of the ' : 1 sidewalk was full of patrons for the theatre as opposed to a mix of patrons and other pedestrians or eVen mostly other pedestrians. Plaintiff did not ha~e to go to the back of the line and could have waited for the crowd to go into the theatre. Similarly, plaintiff and her group could have wait~d for the sidewalk to clear or could have crossed, the street to avoid the crowd. Instead, plair1tiff walked to her destination through a crowd of people that she willingly joined and added ' I to with her group of seventeen people. Plaintiff did n,ot state that she was forced on to the street or was pushed by the crowd. Rather, plaintiff admits !that she and her group navigated through the Heavy crowd toward the back of the line and that ~he was following her friend when she 154474/2014 QUIGLEY, BARBARA vs. NEDERLANDER ORGANIZATION Motion No. 003 3 of 5 Page 3 of 5 --·~-- - - - - - - [* 4] - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -----INDEX NO. NYSCEF DOC. NO. 122 154474/2014 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/26/2017 stepped off the curb. Thus, as plaintiff voluntarily followed her friend on to the street and was not f~rced there, she cannot establish that she was unable to find a place of safety or that her free mov~ment was restricted due to the alleged overcrowding. Additionally, plaintiff's injury did not occur as a result of something done by defendant or the crowd. Rather, her injury occurred down the block, on the street, on a metal plate placed by so'rne other entity over which defendant had no coritrol. In a crowd control case, when an injury is the result of an independent act that is beyond the control of security, summary judgment is appropriate (Maheshwari v City of New York, 307 AD2d 797, 799 [1st Dept 2003], affd, 2 NY3d 288 [2004] ["[E]ven assuming a lapse in the security afforded in the parking lot, plaintiffs injuries are the result of the independent, intervening [in this case criminal] act ... that did not flow from any lack of security .... Thus, the complaint should be dismissed against all the remaining defendants, including [the non-moving and non-appealing City defendants] (Florman v. City ofNew York, supra at 127, 741 N.Y.S.2d 233)]"). . ' Finally, plaintiff's action for negligent supervision is premised on defendant's failures relat~d to the crowd. As this Court has noted that plaintiff cannot maintain a cause of action for overcrowding and inadequate crowd control, the negligent supervision cause of action must fail as well. It is therefore : ORDERED, that defendant Nederlander is granted summary judgment. The remaining parties shall appear for a compliance conference on the previously scheduled date of January 17, I i 2018 in the related matter, index number 155301/2016. ! I This constitutes the decision and order of the Court. 9/19/2017 DATE CHECK ONE: D 0 CASE DISPOSED GRANTED D DENIED 0 LJ 154474/2014 QUIGLEY, BARBARA vs. NEDERLANDER ORGANIZATION Motion No. 003 4 of 5 DAVID BENJAMIN COHEN, J.S.C. NON-FINAL DISPOSITION GRANTED IN PART D OTHER Page 4 of 5 [* 5] INDEX NO. 154474/2014 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 122 APPLICATION: CHECK IF APPROPRIATE: RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/26/2017 EJ SETTLE ORDER SUBMIT ORDER DO NOT POST FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT D REFERENCE I 154~7412014 QUIGLEY, BARBARA vs. NEDERLANDER ORGANIZATION Motion No. 003 5 of 5 Page 5 of 5

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.