Beadell v. Eros Mgmt. Reality

212 N.Y.S.3d 15

Virginia BEADELL et al., Plaintiffs-Respondents/Appellants,

v.EROS MANAGEMENT REALITY, LLC et al., Defendants-Appellants/Respondents,Wyndham Hotel Management, Inc., et al., Defendants.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.

Entered: May 7, 2024

Certain defendants appeal from the order of the Supreme Court, New York County (John J. Kelley, J.), entered July 12, 2022, which, insofar as appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied defendants Eros, Wyndham Hotel Management, Inc., Christian Aldoy, and TRYP Management, Inc.’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against defendants Eros and TRYP. Plaintiffs separate- ly appeal from an order, same court and Justice, entered June 9, 2023 which denied their motion for discovery sanctions to the extent the court did not strike defendants’ answer.

Pollack, Pollack, Isaac & DeCicco LLP, New York (Brian J. Isaac and Paul H. Seidenstock of counsel), for appellants/respondents.

Mauro Lilling Naparty LLP, Woodbury (Seth M. Weinberg and Jonathan M. Turnbaugh of counsel), for respondents/appellants.

Anil C. Singh, J.P., Saliann Scarpulla, Bahaati E. Pitt–Burke, John R. Higgitt, Kelly O’Neill Levy, JJ.

Pitt–Burke, J.

In this appeal, we are asked to consider whether a hotel is subject to liability for failing to prevent a guest’s suicide under a theory of assumed duty, where the hotel does not have custody or control of that guest but delays calling the police after a family member’s request. We find that it is not. Here, defendants have met their prima facie burden as movants, establishing that they neither assumed a duty of care nor proximately caused injury to the decedent, and plaintiffs’ experts’ speculative and conclusory assertions that the hotel’s delay in calling 911 caused decedent’s suicide is insufficient to raise an issue of fact in response.

The events giving rise to plaintiffs’ complaint center around a sequence of events that took place on May 26, 2017, prior to decedent’s suicide. These events, which to the extent relevant to this appeal, are accepted as true and viewed in a light most favorable to plaintiffs. However, we address an important consideration before analyzing the facts and relevant law: the extent of knowledge each party was privy to in real time as the events unfolded. While it might seem unusual to begin an opinion with such a disclaimer, this consideration is expressly relevant because plaintiffs and the dissent focus on aspects of the record that were admittedly unknown to defendants at the time the incident was unfolding—decedent’s prior history, diagnosis, and treatment for suicidal ideations, the multiple medications he was taking for anxiety and depression, and the content of the messages he sent to family members in the events leading up to this tragic incident. This information, as set forth in the facts below, is extensively relied on by the dissent to frame its argument regarding foreseeability. However, as noted in further detail below, its relevance to our disposition of this appeal is curtailed to the extent we find a duty to exist in the first instance (see Hamilton v. Beretta U.S.A. Corp., 96 N.Y.2d 222, 232, 727 N.Y.S.2d 7, 750 N.E.2d 1055 [2001]).

Decedent, the son and husband of plaintiffs Virginia Beadell and Kayla Greeninger, respectively, died by suicide while a guest at a hotel managed and operated by defendant TRYP Management, Inc. and owned by defendant Eros Management & Realty, LLC sued here as Eros Management Realty, LLC.

By way of a timeline, the sequence of events that plaintiffs contend resulted in defendants’ assumption of a duty of care began when decedent’s sister called the hotel at approximately 6:40 p.m. and indicated her concern that decedent was going to end his life. This call, however, was prompted by a sequence of communications that was largely unknown to defendants and therefore not indicative of its knowledge as the incident unfolded.

According to Ms. Greeninger, she received a series of text messages from decedent at some time prior to 5:43 p.m. Eastern Standard Time. These text messages, which Ms. Greeninger described as anx- ious and distressed, concerned the decedent’s anxiety that she was not responding to his text messages. At 5:43 p.m., in response to these messages, Ms. Greeninger called decedent to see if he was ok, and to try and understand what was making him anxious. Notably, during this phone call, decedent seemed coherent, made no indications or threats that he was going to kill himself, and offered no indication that he had been drinking.¹

Ms. Greeninger spoke to decedent again at 6:24 p.m. While she does not recall the exact subject matter of this call, as relevant here, she indicated that decedent seemed coherent and again did not threaten to kill himself.² Shortly after this phone call, however, decedent sent a photograph to Ms. Greeninger of his feet standing on a ledge looking down. After receiving this photograph, Ms. Greeninger immediately sent a text message to decedent’s sister.

According to decedent’s sister, she received a text message from Ms. Greeninger at approximately 6:29 p.m.,³ indicating that decedent was going to harm himself, and describing that he was either on a ledge of a building or somewhere else and was going to jump. At approximately 6:40 p.m., decedent’s sister called the hotel and spoke with the front desk agent. At the time of this call, decedent’s sister had not received any text messages from decedent. However, she told the front desk agent that she was concerned decedent was going to end his life based on a text message she received from Ms. Greeninger. While decedent’s sister indicated that she was unaware of decedent’s location in the hotel, she conveyed that Ms. Greeninger informed her that decedent was on a ledge, or a roof of some sort, and they were concerned he was going to jump. She then requested the hotel check for his safety.

At approximately 6:43 p.m., decedent’s sister called the hotel again and requested that staff go to decedent’s room to check on him. Hotel staff then contacted decedent in his hotel room, at which time decedent indicated that he was fine and did not wish to be disturbed. At 6:46 p.m., hotel workers contacted decedent’s sister and provided an update on their assessment of the situation, indicating that decedent was fine.

At approximately 7:00 p.m., decedent’s sister received a series of text messages from decedent that she described as indicating he was in crisis, that he didn’t want to live, that some people are depressed and anxious, and that he couldn’t take it anymore. Decedent then asked his sister to tell the family goodbye and that they had done all they could for him.

At 7:12 p.m., and in response to decedent’s text message, decedent’s sister called the hotel, identified herself as a medical professional, and asked hotel workers to call the police and put decedent on a 72–hour hold. The hotel responded that they would contact the police.

At 7:21 p.m., Ms. Greeninger had a phone conversation with decedent. According to Ms. Greeninger, decedent was sad, distressed, crying, and saying his goodbyes to her. However, decedent did not say he was going to kill himself.

At 7:26 p.m., a hotel manager called decedent’s sister and asked if she was sure that the police needed to be involved. At approximately the same time, Ms. Greeninger called the hotel and asked for an update. Hotel staff indicated they were on another line with decedent’s sister, trying to get the police to check on the decedent. Ms. Greeninger expressed frustration with the hotel’s update because decedent’s sister had informed her via text message that she had requested the police be called prior to Ms. Greeninger’s call to the hotel.

According to the incident report and police call logs, hotel staff called 911 at approximately 7:37 p.m. The assistant front office manager also went in person to the police station and brought several officers back to the hotel.

The group, which consisted of the police officers and hotel staff, reached the decedent’s room in approximately five minutes. When they arrived, the decedent’s hotel room door was closed and locked. The police officers knocked on decedent’s door but did not receive a response. The building engineer was called to open the door and arrived at the room approximately 10 minutes later. The engineer opened the door, but it was locked from the inside with the door latch. To gain entry into the hotel room, the building engineer cut the door latch, a process that took approximately 10 to 15 minutes.

When officers entered decedent’s room, they observed an empty bottle of alcohol, pill bottles and decedent on the window ledge just outside of the window. Officers engaged with decedent for approximately three minutes in an attempt to talk him back into the room. Unfortunately, their efforts were unsuccessful, and decedent jumped from the ledge.

Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of decedent’s estate, commenced this negligence and wrongful death action against defendants Eros, Wyndham Hotel Management, Inc., Christian Aldoy, and TRYP.⁴ As relevant here, plaintiffs alleged, among other things, that defendants were negligent in failing to prevent decedent’s suicide, that their negligence caused decedent’s injuries and death because defendants failed to timely notify law enforcement authorities, and that defendants’ negligence was the proximate cause of decedent’s conscious pain and suffering, grave physical injuries, and untimely death.

Defendants moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, arguing, among other things, that Eros was not liable as an out-of-possession landowner and that neither Eros or TRYP was liable because they did not have a duty; they did not assume a duty; assuming there was such a duty, there was no breach; and any purported breach was not a proximate cause of the decedent’s death. In support of their motion, defendants...