TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Pantages v. L.G. Airport Hotel Associates, Inc.

Carol Pantages v. L.G. Airport Hotel Associates, Inc., Doing Business as Sheraton Inn-LaGuardia, and Andrea Motel Corp.

Pantages v. L.G. Airport Hotel Associates, Inc., 187 A.D.2d 273 (1992)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · State Appellate Courts
Decided
November 5, 1992
Citations
187 A.D.2d 273589 N.Y.S.2d 4261992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12672

Opinion of the Court

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Shirley Fingerhood, J., and a jury), entered May 16, 1991, which, insofar as appealed from, is in favor of plaintiff Pantages and against defendant Andrea Motel Corp. in the amount of $1.5 million for past pain and suffering and $375,000 for future pain and suffering after reduction for defendant’s 50% proportionate share of liability as found by the jury, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Upon review of the record, we find no infirmity in the jury’s verdict against defendant motel, there being evidence which, fairly construed, shows that plaintiff was brutally raped, sodomized and assaulted by three men, that some of these acts occurred in a room rented for a "short-stay” at defendant motel, and that plaintiff was unable to walk and was carried into the motel room by her assailants in full view of the clerk on duty. Such evidence was sufficient to support a finding that defendant breached its duty of reasonable care to persons lawfully on its premises. While defendant does not have a duty to protect the public in general against criminal acts, certainly it has a duty to prevent its premises from being used for the commission of a crime committed upon one of its guests, and, toward that end, it was incumbent upon defendant to question the motel registrants and refuse them a room, if necessary.

The court did not err in refusing to apportion liability among the three criminal perpetrators (CPLR 1602 [5]).

*274 We have considered the remaining arguments and find them to be without merit. [As amended by order entered Dec. 28, 1992.] Concur—Milonas, J. P., Rosenberger, Ross and Asch, JJ.

How later courts describe this case

Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 5 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.

Cited by 12 cases

View all citing references →
1993: 21996: 11997: 11998: 11999: 12001: 22004: 12006: 12013: 12025: 119932026peak 1993 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Kukla v. Syfus Leasing Corp.928 F. Supp. 1328 (S.D.N.Y. 1996)
  2. Ortiz v. New York City Housing Authority22 F. Supp. 2d 15 (E.D.N.Y. 1998)
  3. Roseboro v. New York City Transit Authority286 A.D.2d 222 (2001) · Dissent
  4. Young-Gibson v. Patel957 F. Supp. 2d 269 (W.D.N.Y. 2013)
  5. Brewster v. Prince Apartments, Inc.264 A.D.2d 611 (1999)
  6. Siler v. 146 Montague Associates228 A.D.2d 33 (1997)

Most recent

  1. Sarhadi v. GeeverNo. 1:24-cv-00031 (N.D.N.Y. July 22, 2025)
  2. Young-Gibson v. Patel957 F. Supp. 2d 269 (W.D.N.Y. 2013)
  3. Thompson v. Steuben Realty Corp.31 A.D.3d 746 (2006)
  4. Roseboro v. New York City Transit Authority10 A.D.3d 524 (2004)
  5. Chianese v. Meier285 A.D.2d 315 (2001)
  6. Roseboro v. New York City Transit Authority286 A.D.2d 222 (2001) · Dissent

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list