Phillip v. United Force Security Corp.
516 F. App'x 38
2d Cir.2013Background
- Amnesia operates a Midtown Manhattan nightclub; Phillip was beaten by unidentified individuals, resulting in a $300,000 jury verdict for Phillip.
- Amnesia appeals the district court’s denial of a CPLR 1601 comparative fault instruction, arguing liability should be apportioned with United Force, the contracted security firm.
- United Force defaulted and was dropped from the case; no trial evidence related to United Force’s agents was presented.
- Amnesia argues its non-delegable duty to maintain a safe environment is unaffected by CPLR 1601; it contends the jury should have apportioned fault with its contractor.
- Amnesia challenges the denial of its directed verdict motion, asserting lack of evidence of breach and that breach was not a proximate/ foreseeable cause.
- The district court’s denial of a mistrial following a remark in opposing counsel’s opening statement is reviewed for abuse of discretion; the court found no reversible error.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether CPLR 1601 comparative fault instruction was required. | Phillip argues 1601 should apply to apportion fault to United Force. | Amnesia contends there was no evidence against United Force and 1601 does not apply to non-delegable duties. | No instruction required; 1601 not applicable to non-delegable duty. |
| Whether there was enough evidence of breach and proximate cause to submit to a jury. | Phillip asserts Amnesia breached its duty and caused the injuries. | Amnesia argues no rational juror could find breach or causation. | Triable issues remained; district court affirmed judgment. |
| Whether the district court abused its discretion by denying a mistrial over opening statement remarks. | Phillip contends misconduct tainted the trial and required a mistrial. | Amnesia argues remarks were not prejudicial beyond cure. | No abuse of discretion; mistrial denied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Rangolan v. County of Nassau, 96 N.Y.2d 42 (2001) (apportions liability for low-fault defendants)
- Basso v. Miller, 40 N.Y.2d 233 (1976) (landlords must maintain premises reasonably safe)
- Maheshwari v. City of New York, 2 N.Y.3d 288 (2004) (foreseeability of criminal acts on property)
- Rotz v. City of New York, 143 A.D.2d 301 (1988) (foreseeable risks of disturbances support liability)
- Koufakis v. Carvel, 425 F.2d 892 (2d Cir. 1970) (misconduct may warrant vacatur depending on prejudice)
- Santa Maria v. Metro-North Commuter R.R., 81 F.3d 265 (2d Cir. 1996) (proper standard for review of mistrial decisions)
- Jayes v. Storms, 12 A.D.3d 1090 (4th Dep’t 2004) (issues of fact concerning duty to supervise patrons)
- Dollar v. O’Hearn, 248 A.D.2d 886 (3d Dep’t 1998) (evidence of noisy patrons can raise duty questions)