Excessive drinking by “amateurs” on New Year’s Eve often leads to trouble, and intoxication appeared to be an issue in Coons v. Hotel Gansevoort Group, LLC and Security Services, Inc.,  which involved a plaintiff hotel patron who had travelled to New York City to attend a ritzy New Year’s Eve party at the penthouse bar at the Hotel Gansevoort. He was in the elevator on his way to the lobby at about 1 a.m. after ringing in the New Year, along with two men being escorted by a security guard hired by Security Services Inc. (“SSI”).  The two men appeared intoxicated and looked like they had been in a fight as there was blood on their clothes. As the elevator door opened in the lobby and plaintiff walked out, he was struck from behind by one of the men and fell to the ground.

Plaintiff sued the Hotel Gansevoort, SSI and the security guard individually. SSI moved for summary judgment, arguing they did not owe plaintiff a duty of care as he was a stranger to their contract with the hotel to provide security. The trial court denied the motion, holding that the hotel was aware of the patrons’ dangerous propensities since they had been in a fight and were being escorted off the premises. The court also found that the danger of placing the men in an elevator cab with other hotel guests should have been obvious to security personnel, and therefore SSI could be found to have created or exacerbated a dangerous condition, giving rise to a tort duty of care.

SSI appealed the decision, and the First Department found that SSI, an independent security contractor for the defendant hotel, did not owe plaintiff a duty of care. The Court held that the oral contract for security services did not extend to plaintiff. Because SSI owed no duty to the plaintiff, SSI was entitled to summary judgment and the First Department reversed the lower court’s decision and dismissed the case against SSI.

Thanks to Jorgelina Foglietta for her contribution to this post and please write to Mike Bono if you would like more information.