Maheshwari v. City of New York
2 N.Y.3d 288, 810 N.E.2d 894, 778 N.Y.S.2d 442 (2004)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Landowners and event permittees have a duty to maintain their property in a reasonably safe condition, but they are not insurers of safety and are generally not liable for unforeseeable, random criminal acts of third parties unless there is a heightened foreseeability or a causal connection to their negligence.
Facts:
- On July 10 and 11, 1996, Delsener/Slater produced a Lollapalooza concert at Downing Stadium on Randall’s Island, a facility owned by the City of New York.
- Delsener's stadium use agreement with the City required Delsener to provide 'supervision of the parking areas for the Event,' including 'sufficient trained security personnel' and a site and operations plan detailing traffic, parking, and security.
- Representatives from Delsener, the Police Department, and the Parks Department attended an 'all-agency meeting' where they agreed the City would provide security in the parking areas.
- On the days of the concert, the security plan involved 24 police officers, three sergeants, and approximately two dozen Parks Enforcement Police (PEP) officers patrolling the parking areas, with Delsener also contracting a firm for traffic flow and parking direction.
- On July 10, 1996, the plaintiff went to the concert to distribute pamphlets for the International Society for Krishna Consciousness.
- While in the Sunken Meadow parking area, four unidentified young men, described as 'heavily drunk, red eyes, bottles in their hand, smelling,' assaulted the plaintiff without provocation.
- Although officers were stationed at some parts of the parking fields, none were assigned to the specific Sunken Meadow parking area where the attack occurred.
- Plaintiff presented statistics of arrests for disorderly conduct, misdemeanor assault, criminal mischief, resisting arrest, and possession of stolen property from previous Lollapalooza concerts, and claimed knowledge of violent incidents involving one of the musical acts, Wu Tang Clan.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiff (and his wife derivatively) sued Delsener and the City in Supreme Court (the trial court of first instance) for not providing adequate security.
- Delsener moved for summary judgment, arguing it owed no duty to prevent a random criminal act.
- Supreme Court denied Delsener's motion for summary judgment.
- Delsener appealed to the Appellate Division (the intermediate appellate court).
- The Appellate Division, by a divided court, reversed the Supreme Court's decision and granted summary judgment to both Delsener (the appellant) and the City (who had not appealed, but the Appellate Division had the authority to grant summary judgment under CPLR 3212 [b]).
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Can the City of New York and the concert producer be held liable for personal injuries sustained by a plaintiff who was randomly attacked by unidentified individuals in a parking lot at a music festival?
Opinions:
Majority - Rosenblatt, J.
No, the City and the concert producer cannot be held liable because the random and unprovoked criminal assault on the plaintiff was not a foreseeable result of any alleged security breach, and it constituted an independent, intervening act that broke the chain of causation. The court affirmed that New York landowners and permittees owe a duty of reasonable care to maintain their property in a safe condition, including minimizing foreseeable dangers from third-party criminal acts, but they are not insurers of visitor safety. The scope of this duty is defined by past experience and the likelihood of dangerous third-party conduct. The court found that the types of crimes cited from previous Lollapalooza concerts (e.g., disorderly conduct, misdemeanor assault) were of a lesser degree than a criminal assault and would not lead defendants to predict such a random, brutal attack. The defendants had taken reasonable measures for crowd control and general disorderliness. Furthermore, even assuming a lapse in security, the plaintiff's injuries were caused by an independent, intervening criminal act. An intervening act breaks the causal nexus if it is 'extraordinary under the circumstances, not foreseeable in the normal course of events, or independent of or far removed from the defendant’s conduct.' The unprovoked assault in the parking lot was deemed extraordinary, unforeseeable, and sufficiently far removed from the defendants' conduct to break the causal chain.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the limits of premises liability for third-party criminal acts in New York, particularly in the context of large public events. It reinforces that while landowners have a duty of reasonable care, this duty does not extend to insuring against every possible criminal act, especially those that are random and not of a type previously experienced or foreseeable based on prior incidents. The ruling emphasizes the high bar for establishing foreseeability and proximate cause when an independent, violent criminal act intervenes, suggesting that general rowdiness or minor offenses at past events are insufficient to make a brutal assault foreseeable. This impacts event organizers by setting clear expectations about their duty to provide security, while simultaneously protecting them from liability for truly unpredictable acts.
