HASTON v. EAST GATE SECURITY CONSULTANTS INC

Reset A A Font size: Print

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

Anne P. HASTON, appellant, v. EAST GATE SECURITY CONSULTANTS, INC., respondent.

Decided: March 22, 1999

LAWRENCE J. BRACKEN, J.P., THOMAS R. SULLIVAN, MYRIAM J. ALTMAN and LEO F. MCGINITY, JJ. Robert H. Weissand Associates, P.C., Garden City, N.Y. (Martin Coleman and Albert J. Fiorella of counsel), for appellant. Fiedelman & McGaw, Jericho, N.Y. (William D. Buckley of counsel), for respondent.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (McCarty, J.), dated February 24, 1998, which granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and denied, as academic, her cross motion for leave to amend the complaint and bill of particulars and for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff was assaulted during the commission of a robbery at the bank where she was employed.   She subsequently commenced this action against the security company which provided a uniformed, unarmed guard for the premises, alleging that the defendant was negligent in performing its services.

 The Supreme Court properly granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.   The defendant owed no contractual or common-law duty to protect the plaintiff from injury.   The plaintiff was not a third-party beneficiary of the defendant's agreement to provide security services.   Further, the defendant did not assume a duty to exercise reasonable care to prevent harm to the plaintiff by virtue of its contractual duty to provide an unarmed security guard (see, O'Gorman v. Gold Shield Sec. & Investigation, 221 A.D.2d 325, 633 N.Y.S.2d 517;  Abramian v. Travellers Hotel Assocs. of LaGuardia, 203 A.D.2d 398, 610 N.Y.S.2d 310;  Johnson v. McLane Assocs., 201 A.D.2d 436, 608 N.Y.S.2d 165;  Paradiso v. Apex Investigators & Sec. Co., 91 A.D.2d 929, 458 N.Y.S.2d 234;  Bernal v. Pinkerton's, Inc., 52 A.D.2d 760, 382 N.Y.S.2d 769, affd. 41 N.Y.2d 938, 394 N.Y.S.2d 638, 363 N.E.2d 362).

The plaintiff's remaining contentions are without merit.

MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.

Copied to clipboard