The New York Appellate Division recently ruled in the case of Torres v. Frank & Sal, LLC, which involves a stabbing incident at a grocery store. The court's decision affects how negligence claims are evaluated in similar circumstances. This ruling is significant for businesses and individuals alike, as it clarifies the responsibilities of establishments in preventing harm to customers.
The case centers around Vincent Torres, who suffered personal injuries after being stabbed by William Volkes. The incident occurred when Torres attempted to retrieve his girlfriend's cell phone from Volkes, who was known to the girlfriend. After the altercation, Volkes fled to Frank & Sal, LLC, a grocery market where he was a regular customer. Inside the store, Volkes requested a knife from an employee, who provided him with a boning knife without questioning his intentions. Volkes then left the store with the knife and returned to stab Torres.
Torres filed a lawsuit against Frank & Sal, LLC, claiming that the grocery store was negligent for allowing Volkes to take a knife without ensuring it would not be used to harm anyone. The case was assigned docket number 2025-04130 and went through the legal process, culminating in a motion for summary judgment filed by Frank & Sal, LLC. The grocery store sought to have the complaint dismissed, arguing that it did not owe a duty of care to Torres.
The Supreme Court of Kings County initially denied the grocery store's motion for summary judgment on March 5, 2025. This prompted Frank & Sal, LLC to appeal the decision. The Appellate Division reviewed the case and considered the elements of negligence, which include a duty owed by the defendant to the plaintiff, a breach of that duty, and a showing that the breach was a proximate cause of the plaintiff's injury.
In its ruling, the Appellate Division reversed the lower court's decision, granting Frank & Sal, LLC's motion for summary judgment. The court found that the grocery store did not owe a duty to Torres, stating, "F & S established, prima facie, that it did not owe a duty to the plaintiff." The judges emphasized that Frank & Sal, LLC lacked sufficient authority to control Volkes after he left the store and that there was no special relationship between the grocery store and Torres that would require them to protect him from harm.
The ruling was made by a panel of judges, including Betsy Barros, Cheryl E. Chambers, Janice A. Taylor, and Elena Goldberg Velazquez. They concluded that Torres failed to raise a triable issue of fact to counter the grocery store's claims. The court noted, "Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have granted F & S's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it." This decision underscores the importance of establishing a duty of care in negligence cases.
The implications of this ruling extend beyond this particular case. It clarifies that businesses may not be held liable for the actions of individuals who are not under their control, especially in situations where there is no direct relationship with the injured party. This sets a precedent for future negligence claims involving businesses and their responsibilities to customers.
Moving forward, this ruling may influence how similar cases are approached in New York and potentially in other jurisdictions. It highlights the necessity for plaintiffs to demonstrate a clear duty of care when pursuing negligence claims against businesses. The decision could also encourage businesses to review their policies regarding customer interactions and the provision of potentially dangerous items.
As for next steps, it is unclear whether Torres plans to appeal the Appellate Division's decision. There may also be related cases pending that could further explore the boundaries of negligence and duty of care in similar contexts. However, details were not available in the court filing regarding any potential appeals or related cases.