Monthly Archives: June 2024

Court Determines Whether Plaintiff Assumed the Risk  

Aisha Gillard alleged that while attending a birthday party at  Le Rev, a hookah lounge, a hookah that contained a bowl with burning coals fell on her, causing injuries to her chest. According to Gillard, the hookah had been placed on the table in front of her and was knocked over by patrons who were dancing nearby. Litigation ensued. Le Reve moved for summary judgment dismissing Gillard’s complaint. Supreme Court denied the motion. Le Rev appealed.

Supreme Court properly rejected Le Rev’s argument that the assumption of risk doctrine was applicable to the facts of this case. The doctrine is generally limited to personal injury claims arising from sporting events, sponsored athletic and recreative activities, or athletic or recreational pursuits that take place in designated venues. The retention of the doctrine is most persuasively justified for its utility in facilitating free and vigorous participation in athletic activities that possess enormous social value, even while they involve significantly heightened risks that may be voluntarily assumed to preserve the beneficial aspects of sports as against the prohibitive liability that would otherwise arise.

Court Determines If Owner Was on Notice or Had Res Ipsa Loquitur Liability

Angela Rosario was injured when her foot went through the surface of a back deck of an apartment, creating a hole in the deck through which she fell. Peter Cao and others, who owned the building, had purchased the property approximately 51 days before the accident.

Litigation ensued. Supreme Court granted Cao’s motion for summary judgment dismissing Rosario’s complaint. Rosario appealed.

Was Managing Agent Liable For Launching and Instrument of Harm That Caused Accident?

Kylie Long tripped and fell on a chair in her cubicle, sustaining injuries, while getting up to activate the motion sensors that controlled the lighting that had gone off in her employer’s office building. Litigation ensued against Cushman & Wakefield, Inc., the managing agent for the building.  C&W moved for summary judgment dismissing Long’s complaint. The motion was denied. C&W appealed.

Supreme Court determined that issues of fact existed as to whether C&W, which had contracted with the employer to provide property management services, owed a duty of care to Long. There were issues of fact as to whether Long detrimentally relied on C&W to perform its obligations under the contract to keep the premises safe. C&W’s contention that Long could not claim detrimental reliance absent her actual knowledge of the property management agreement between C&W and her employer was improperly raised for the first time on appeal and, in any event, was unavailing in light of Long’s testimony, which raised an issue of fact as to her knowledge of the agreement.