Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Majorie HILLEN, appellant, v. QUEENS LONG ISLAND MEDICAL GROUP, P.C., respondent.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (R. Doyle, J.), dated September 4, 2007, which granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
A property owner has a duty to take reasonable measures to control the foreseeable conduct of third parties on the property to prevent them from intentionally harming or creating an unreasonable risk of harm to others (see DeRyss v. New York Cent. R.R. Co., 275 N.Y. 85, 9 N.E.2d 788; Jaume v. Ry Mgt. Co., 2 A.D.3d 590, 591, 769 N.Y.S.2d 303; Murphy v. Turian House, 232 A.D.2d 535, 649 N.Y.S.2d 38). This duty arises when there is an ability and opportunity to control such conduct, and an awareness of the need to do so (see D'Amico v. Christie, 71 N.Y.2d 76, 85, 524 N.Y.S.2d 1, 518 N.E.2d 896; DeRyss v. New York Cent. R.R. Co., 275 N.Y. 85, 9 N.E.2d 788; Jaume v. Ry Mgt. Co., 2 A.D.3d at 591, 769 N.Y.S.2d 303).
Here, the defendant medical facility made a prima facie showing of its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting evidence demonstrating that it did not have the ability and opportunity to control the conduct of the unidentified child who suddenly ran ahead of his mother and accidentally bumped into the elderly plaintiff, and that it had no awareness of the need to control the conduct of the child, who was under his mother's supervision (see Jaume v. Ry Mgt. Co., 2 A.D.3d at 591, 769 N.Y.S.2d 303; Lazar v. TJX Cos., 1 A.D.3d 319, 767 N.Y.S.2d 52; Lee v. Durow's Rest., 238 A.D.2d 384, 385, 656 N.Y.S.2d 321). In opposition to the motion, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see Troiano v. DeMarco, 50 A.D.3d 1020, 1021, 858 N.Y.S.2d 189; Jaume v. Ry Mgt. Co., 2 A.D.3d at 591, 769 N.Y.S.2d 303; Lazar v. TJX Cos., 1 A.D.3d 319, 319, 767 N.Y.S.2d 52). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: December 30, 2008
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)