## Facts

- Frank Cutrone attended a tournament roller hockey game as a spectator at a rink owned and operated by Monarch Holding Corp. and Rapid Fire Arena.
- Christopher Ruggiero, a tournament player, had been ejected from the game and was seated in the bleachers.
- Ruggiero suddenly yelled at Cutrone, jumped down from the bleachers, threw a garbage can toward him, ran approximately 15–20 feet, and assaulted him.
- Cutrone testified that Ruggiero struck him with a hockey stick, punched him in the mouth (knocking out a tooth), and hit his head and back multiple times with a metal folding chair.
- There was no evidence of prior interaction between Cutrone and Ruggiero and no evidence of similar prior incidents at the arena.
- Cutrone sued the arena owner and operator for negligence, alleging inadequate security and failure to protect spectators from foreseeable harm.
- The arena defendants moved for summary judgment, asserting the attack was sudden, unforeseeable, and not preventable by reasonable measures.

## Issues

1. Whether the owner/operator of a public recreational facility owes a duty to protect a spectator from a sudden, unprovoked assault by a third party absent notice of prior similar incidents or other facts making the assault foreseeable.
2. Whether the arena defendants were entitled to summary judgment because the record showed no reasonable awareness of the need to control the assailant and no opportunity to prevent the assault.

## Decision

- The Appellate Division affirmed the order granting summary judgment to Monarch Holding Corp. and Rapid Fire Arena, dismissing the complaint against them.
- The court held the assault was unforeseeable and unexpected as a matter of law on the record presented.
- The court concluded the arena defendants lacked a reasonable awareness of the need to control Ruggiero and lacked a meaningful opportunity to prevent the assault.
- Costs were awarded to the arena defendants on the appeal.

## Legal Principles

- A landowner must act reasonably to prevent harm to persons on the property, but the duty is limited in cases involving third-party criminal conduct.
- A proprietor’s duty to control the conduct of persons on the premises arises only when it has the opportunity to control them and is reasonably aware of the need for such control.
- Owners of public establishments generally have no duty to protect patrons from unforeseeable and unexpected assaults by third parties.
- A proprietor is not an insurer of patrons’ safety; liability for inadequate security depends on foreseeability, notice, and a reasonable opportunity to intervene.
- On summary judgment, defendants may establish entitlement to dismissal by showing the absence of prior similar incidents, warning signs, or other proof making the assault foreseeable; the plaintiff must then raise a triable issue with admissible evidence.

## Conclusion

The court held that the arena owner and operator could not be liable for a sudden, unprovoked spectator assault where the record lacked evidence of prior similar incidents, notice of the assailant’s dangerousness, or circumstances giving the defendants a reasonable opportunity to control the assailant before the attack.


Cutrone v. Monarch Holding Corp., 299 A.D.2d 388, 749 N.Y.S.2d 280 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep’t 2002)