Branham v. Loews Orpheum Cinemas, Inc.

N.Y.

Court: New York Court of Appeals

Citations: 8 N.Y.3d 931, 834 N.Y.S.2d 503, 866 N.E.2d 448

Decision Date: 4/3/2007

Jurisdiction: NY

Bluebook Citation: Branham v. Loews Orpheum Cinemas, Inc., 8 N.Y.3d 931, 834 N.Y.S.2d 503, 866 N.E.2d 448 (2007)

More Cases: N.Y. decisions from 2007

Citation analytics

How this case sits in the citation network, derived from CiteLaw's graph of published opinions.

★Highly CitedTop 4% most-cited · cited by 85 decisions

Citing decisions

Authorities cited

Courts citing

Citations by decade

2000s2010s2020s

Courts citing this case

N.Y. App. Div.52

N.Y. Sup. Ct.11

N.Y. Sup. Ct., Bronx Cty.5

N.Y. Sup. Queens4

N.Y.3

N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York Cty.3

Most recently cited by10

2025People v. Trump N.Y. App. Div.
2025Sanchez v. 562 Thieriot Ave, LLC N.Y. App. Div.
2025Zyskowski v. Chelsea-Warren Corp. N.Y. App. Div.
2025Henriquez v. Appula Mgt. Corp. N.Y. App. Div.
2025YSHO Holding, Inc. v. 274 Bowery Leasehold LLC N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York Cty.
2024Rothstein v. Krane LLP N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York Cty.
2024AJ Partners Lending, LLC v. Chen & Jiang Enter. LLC N.Y. Sup. Kings
2024Floyd v. Jewish Bd. of Family & Children's Servs. N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York Cty.
2024Bank of N.Y. Mellon v. Fergus N.Y. Sup. Kings
2024Matter of Yee v. (Chiang) N.Y. Surr. Ct., New York Cty.

Cites 3 cases

Gilson v. Metropolitan Opera
Fundamental Portfolio Advisors, Inc. v. Tocqueville Asset Management, L.P.
Gordon v. American Museum of Natural History

Counts reflect decisions in the CiteLaw corpus and may lag very recent opinions.

Opinion

Lottie Branham, Appellant, v Loews Orpheum Cinemas, Inc., Respondent, et al., Defendants.

Attorneys

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL
Dubow & Smith, Bronx (Michael Dubow of counsel), for appellant.
Congdon, Flaherty, O’Callaghan, Reid, Donlon, Travis & Fishlinger, Uniondale (Kathleen D. Foley of counsel), for respondent.

majority

Memorandum.

The Appellate Division order should be affirmed with costs and the certified question not answered upon the ground that it is unnecessary. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to plaintiff, as we must on defendant’s motion for summary judgment (see Fundamental Portfolio Advisors, Inc. v Tocqueville Asset Mgt., L.P., 7 NY3d 96 [2006]), defendant Loews demonstrated its entitlement to summary judgment dismissing the complaint against it. In opposition, plaintiff failed to adduce sufficient evidence that Loews had actual or constructive notice of the transient obstruction — a boy sitting in the aisle — or that the lighting in the theater was inadequate (see Piacquadio v Recine Realty Corp., 84 NY2d 967 [1994]; Gordon v American Museum of Natural History, 67 NY2d 836 [1986]; see also Gilson v Metropolitan Opera, 5 NY3d 574 [2005]).

Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Ciparick, Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott and Jones concur in memorandum.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.11), order affirmed, etc.