Jeffrey Samel & Partners

Recreation/Hospitality/Food Service

JEFFREY SAMEL & PARTNERS represents operators of bowling alleys, ski resorts, skating rinks, gyms, swimming pools, horse riding stables, summer camps, and other recreational facilities, regarding a wide variety of liability and damage claims. Similarly, we represent owners of restaurants, hotels, and sports and music arenas in such disparate cases as those involving slip and fall claims, tainted food and beverages, Dram Shop allegations, and allegations of inadequate security and of employee or third-party assaults.

Trial Successes

Travlos v. Coram Country Lanes, LLC [Supreme Suffolk] Defense Verdict Plaintiff, her husband, cousin, and a friend, alleged that she slipped and fell due to the presence of an oily substance located prior to the foul line. Plaintiff’s husband testified that he had seen a bowling alley employee utilizing a machine to apply oil several lanes away while his group was bowling. Plaintiff argued that this evidence created a reasonable inference that the oily substance in her lane had been negligently dropped by the same machine. Upon such basis, the Appellate Division Second Department affirmed the denial of our summary judgment motion. However, at trial, we successfully convinced the jury to reject such inference and to render a defense verdict based also upon plaintiff’s assumption of a risk inherent in the activity of bowling. (Robert Spevack)

Andriopoulos v. Kim [Supreme Queens] Defense Verdict We successfully represented the owner of a children’s gym in a case in which the eight-year-old plaintiff was seriously injured when the floor mats she was jumping on shifted, causing her to fall onto the hardwood floor. The jury agreed with our defense that there was no proof of notice to the gym owner that the safety mats shifted, leaving exposed a portion of wooden floor. (Kevin Bigelow)

Appellate Decisions

Gibbs v. New York City Housing Auth. 272 A.D.2d 370, 707 N.Y.S.2d 222 (2d Dept. 2000) Plaintiff allegedly slipped on sand on a basketball court, and commenced an action against the Housing Authority. We moved for summary judgment, contending that plaintiff had voluntarily assumed the foreseeable risk of his accident, and that assumption of risk was a complete defense to the action. The Appellate Division agreed, granting summary judgment and dismissing the complaint. (David Samel)

Summary Judgment & Dispositive Motions

Cassarino-Stucker v. RAB & DEE Bowling Inc. [Supreme Richmond] Plaintiff claimed that while bowling as part of a league, she slipped on an unidentified substance that she insisted was located prior to the foul line. Plaintiff alleged that prior to her fall, she saw an employee walking across the approach area, and claimed he must have tracked some greasy substance while doing so. Plaintiff suffered a ligament tear of the right thumb, necessitating a surgical repair. In granting our summary judgment, the court agreed with our argument that plaintiff's claim was founded upon pure speculation and surmise that was insufficient to establish a prima facie case of negligence. (Judah Z. Cohen)

Agnello v. Paccione Properties [Supreme Richmond] Plaintiff slipped and fell while bowling at our client’s facilities. Videotaped surveillance footage we obtained showed that the plaintiff slipped only after he crossed the foul line, where it is customary to oil the alleys. We moved for summary judgment, arguing that the plaintiff’s self-serving testimony to the contrary could not overcome the clear evidence of the videotape. The court dismissed the plaintiff's complaint, holding that plaintiff’s participation in the sport of bowling constituted primary assumption of the risk, and that there was no provable fault on the part of our client. (Christopher L. Cornish)

Ilyas v. Hilt-Hunt, LLC & Hilton Huntington [Supreme Queens] Plaintiff claimed that he slipped and fell at night in the parking lot of the Huntington Hilton due to inoperative lighting. We argued on behalf of the hotel operators that there was no proof of notice of the allegedly insufficient lighting conditions. We produced maintenance records for six months prior to the date of accident, which did not reveal any complaints concerning inadequate lighting conditions in the parking lot. The court, in dismissing the complaint upon our motion for summary judgment, agreed that proof of notice was insufficient and that plaintiff had also failed to establish that inadequate lighting was the proximate cause of his accident. (David Samel)

McAllister v. LaParma Brothers [Supreme Suffolk] Plaintiff, a frequent diner at our client’s restaurant, claimed that as she was leaving her table on a particular evening, a patron seated behind her moved his chair into her leg, causing her to fall and suffer serious injury. Plaintiff alleged that the table configuration of the restaurant was hazardous, thereby creating the circumstances for this type of accident to occur. The court fully adopted the arguments made in our motion for summary judgment, holding: “There are certain occurrences which one might consider sufficiently recurring as to be incidental to the usual routine of life in our society, and, while one might strive to avoid them, their occurrence is not necessarily actionable without some proof of negligence. A few examples come to mind; accidental bumping into another while walking or in a crowded airport or terminal; getting up from a table in a crowded restaurant and accidentally striking one with the back of the chair as one stood up.” (Judah Z. Cohen)

Crook v. Wendy’s Int’l. [Supreme Suffolk] Plaintiff, an elderly woman, claimed she slipped and fell on the floor of our client’s restaurant due to spilled liquid. Plaintiff testified that she had observed a restaurant employee mopping the floor shortly before her accident. As a result of the occurrence, she had to undergo a total hip replacement, and was eventually forced to live in a nursing home. We moved for summary judgment, based upon plaintiff's inability to establish actual or constructive notice of the spilled liquid. The court agreed with our position that plaintiff's claims were purely speculative, and that there was no evidence establishing that the restaurant created the condition or had actual or constructive notice of it. (Judah Z. Cohen)

Villa v. Paradise Theater Productions [Supreme New York] Plaintiff was attending a rap concert at our client's theater. After being invited into a "VIP" section of the theater, he got into an argument with a rap artist and was slashed in the face with a box-cutter by an unknown assailant who was part of that artist's entourage. The court agreed with the position we expressed in our summary judgment motion that the security provided at the concert by our client was reasonable, and that the assault by the unknown third-party was unforeseeable. The court also agreed with our argument that the plaintiff's expert had not established a higher standard of care for such an event, and that the theater owner was not the guarantor of the plaintiff's safety. (Christopher L. Cornish)

Banca v. Our Savior Lutheran School [Supreme Kings] The three-year-old infant plaintiff fell out of a plastic toy wagon being pulled by another child in an after-school program. The children were being supervised by three adults. Plaintiffs sued our client, alleging negligent supervision and a defective condition on the property. We moved for summary judgment, arguing that there was no evidence that the adult supervision was inadequate and no proof that the child fell out of the wagon due to a defective condition of the premises. Plaintiffs contended, by means of expert opinion evidence, that the surface of the schoolyard was unsafe. However, the court granted our motion for summary judgment, ruling that the accident occurred as a result of sudden and spontaneous play that no amount of supervision would have prevented; and that it was pure speculation that the child fell from the wagon as a result of a defect on the surface of the playground. (Melissa Johnson)