NAPOLITANO v. MADISON SQUARE GARDEN CENTER INC (2003)

Order entered February 11, 2002 (Eileen N. Nadelson, J.) affirmed, with $10 costs.

 Plaintiff allegedly was injured while attending a New York Rangers hockey game during an altercation with another spectator.   Summary judgment dismissing plaintiff's common-law negligence cause of action against defendant Madison Square Garden Center was properly granted, since the record evidence, including the parties' deposition testimony, shows only that the altercation at issue was a spontaneous and unexpected event (see, Elba v. Billie's 1890 Saloon, 227 A.D.2d 438, 644 N.Y.S.2d 278;  Scotti v. W.M. Amusements, 226 A.D.2d 522, 640 N.Y.S.2d 617;  see also, Daniels v. Manhattan and Bronx Surface Tr. Operating Auth., 261 A.D.2d 115, 689 N.Y.S.2d 463, lv. denied 93 N.Y.2d 815, 697 N.Y.S.2d 563, 719 N.E.2d 924).   In the face of defendant's prima facie showing that it undertook reasonable security measures, including its deployment throughout the arena of over 80 “patrolling” and other security personnel, plaintiff's conclusory and unsubstantiated allegation that defendant failed to adequately protect him from the other spectator's aggression is insufficient to raise a triable issue.   Absent from the record is any evidence that defendant's security guards knew or should have known that the underlying altercation was imminent or that plaintiff was faced with any foreseeable risk of danger.   Indeed, “[i]t is difficult to understand what measures could have been undertaken to prevent plaintiff's injury except presumably to have had a security officer posted at the precise location where the incident took place ․, surely an unreasonable burden.”  (Florman v. City of New York, 293 A.D.2d 120, 127, 741 N.Y.S.2d 233.)

 To the extent that the vaguely-stated allegations of plaintiff's bill of particulars can be read to assert a Dram Shop cause of action (General Obligations Law § 11-101) and assuming that such allegations were properly raised by plaintiff in opposing summary judgment (compare, David v. New York City Hous. Auth., 284 A.D.2d 169, 727 N.Y.S.2d 404, with Lewis v. New York City Hous. Auth., 237 A.D.2d 414, 655 N.Y.S.2d 553), the record, which contains no evidence that defendant's employees actually served any alcoholic beverages to plaintiff's assailant, provides no basis for liability under that theory (see, Pizzaro v. City of New York, 188 A.D.2d 591, 594, 591 N.Y.S.2d 485, lv. denied 82 N.Y.2d 656, 602 N.Y.S.2d 805, 622 N.E.2d 306).

This constitutes the decision and order of the court.

PER CURIAM.