Judicial Insight
Back to feed
(the bar is not liable for the assault)CivilCourt of AppealsAppeal

Doren v. Allstar Sec. & Consulting, Inc.

Court
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Decided
Oct 6, 2026
Docket
Index No. 152450/21 595940/22|Appeal No. 7154|Case No. 2025-04139|
Judges
Not listed
Cited as2026 NY Slip Op 05720
Detailed analysis & 3-line summary

AI breakdown

Analyzed Oct 6, 2026

Where this case stands

  1. Supreme Court: granted dismissing plaintiff's claims against the bar for negligence.

  2. This decision · Appeal

    (the bar is not liable for the assault)

TL;DR

  1. 1The man who sued said he was assaulted after being kicked out of a bar.
  2. 2The court ruled that the bar was not negligent in its hiring or supervision.
  3. 3The decision was based on a lack of evidence that the bar knew about the threat.

Key issues

  1. 1

    Did the bar act negligently in hiring or supervising its security staff?

    Holding · The court said the bar did not act negligently because there was no evidence of a threat.

Why it matters

This affects how bars handle security and their responsibility for customer safety.

The AI breakdown is a reading aid, not legal advice. Always check the opinion for the exact wording.

If you were the judge?

A man sues a bar after being attacked outside. Did the bar do anything wrong?

  1. 1A man claims he was attacked by a stranger after being kicked out of a bar where he had been drinking.
  2. 2He argues that the bar didn't properly hire or supervise its security company, which was in charge that night.
  3. 3The bar defends itself, saying it had no reason to expect trouble when he was forced to leave.

Did the bar act negligently in hiring or supervising their security staff?

Parties

  • Appellant

    Doren

  • Appellee

    Allstar Sec. & Consulting, Inc.

Roles are inferred from the case caption.

Opinion of the court
Doren v Allstar Sec. & Consulting, Inc. 2026 NY Slip Op 05720 October 6, 2026 Appellate Division, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This decision is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports. Christopher Doren, Plaintiff-Appellant, v Allstar Security & Consulting, Inc. et al., Defendants-Respondents, New Lounge 4324 LLC, doing business as Bounce Sporting Club, Defendant-Respondent, John Doe 1 et al., Defendants. (And a Third-Party Action.) Decided and Entered: October 06, 2026 Index No. 152450/21 595940/22|Appeal No. 7154|Case No. 2025-04139| Before: Moulton, J.P., Gesmer, Shulman, Hagler, Parker-Raso, JJ. The Lambrou Law Firm, P.C., New York (Lambros Y. Lambrou of counsel), for appellant. Wade Clark Mulcahy LLP, New York (Abed Z. Bhuyan of counsel), for New Lounge 4324 LLC, respondent. Kennedys CMK LLP, New York (Ivette Reyes of counsel), for Allstar Security Consulting, Inc. and 53-55 West 21 Owner LLC, respondents. [*1] Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Mary V. Rosado, J.), entered on or about May 2, 2025, which, to the extent appealed from, granted the motion of defendant New Lounge 4324 LLC, d/b/a Bounce Sporting Club (New Lounge) for summary judgment dismissing plaintiff's claims against it for negligent hiring, supervision, or retention and negligence, unanimously affirmed, without costs. New Lounge was entitled to dismissal of plaintiff's claim for negligent hiring, supervision, or retention because plaintiff failed to establish that New Lounge took any steps to transform Allstar's security guards from independent contractors into special employees (see McLaughlan v BR Guest, Inc., 149 AD3d 519, 520 [1st Dept 2017]). Moreover, even if New Lounge had exercised more than general supervisory powers over Allstar's guards, the record is devoid of evidence indicating that New Lounge was on notice of any "propensity to engage in . . . injury-causing conduct" by Allstar's guards (cf. Gupta v YM Pro Corp, 220 AD3d 442, 442 [1st Dept 2023]). The negligence claim was correctly dismissed because the record demonstrates that plaintiff was assaulted by a random pedestrian who approached and shoved plaintiff and plaintiff's acquaintance, after they had both been escorted out of the bar operated by New Lounge shortly before the altercation. There is no indication that New Lounge was on notice of a potential fight, and the pedestrian was not a patron of the bar at the time. Given these facts, the assault was unforeseeable from New Lounge's perspective (see Mitchell v Just Lorraine's Place, LLC, 214 AD3d 538, 538 [1st Dept 2023]). Plaintiff's expert's affidavit did not raise an issue of fact as to whether New Lounge was negligent, as it failed to reference "specific, applicable industry standards or practices" (Coyle v Dos-Santos, 231 AD3d 573, 574 [1st Dept 2024]). THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT. ENTERED: October 6, 2026
View on CourtListener