Assault case against Voyeur settled

Assault case against Voyeur settled

Share to Facebook Share to Twitter Share to Google Plus

Nicholas D. Forte, a South Philadelphia gay man who was assaulted outside Voyeur four years ago, recently settled his civil suit against the popular nightspot.

Forte, a former PGN advertising representative, filed suit against Voyeur in November 2015, seeking more than $50,000 in damages. 

Terms of the settlement, finalized Aug. 27, were unavailable. 

Around 2 a.m. Nov. 10, 2013, Forte was assaulted by Miguel Maldonado and Matthew Morris outside Voyeur, at 1221 St. James St. in the Gayborhood.

Forte’s injuries include a broken eye socket, a broken nose, a broken rib and multiple facial fractures.

According to court records, some of Forte’s injuries are permanent in nature. His medical expenses alone exceeded $100,000.

Forte contended that he was targeted due to his sexual orientation. 

“Upon information and belief, [Forte’s] assault was motivated by his sexual orientation,” his attorney stated in the suit. 

However, Philadelphia Police declined to classify the incident as a hate crime.

Forte contended that Maldonado and Morris were served alcohol at Voyeur prior to assaulting him, even though they were visibly intoxicated. Maldonado allegedly was employed as a bouncer at Voyeur at the time of the incident. 

“Alcohol was improperly supplied to [Morris and Maldonado] and consumed by them while in a visibly intoxicated state,” according to the suit. “They were served until their blood-alcohol content levels were well in excess of the amounts permitted under the law.”

According to Forte’s suit, operators of Voyeur failed to enact guidelines for reasonable use of force against patrons, failed to ensure proper background checks for its security personnel, allowed overcrowding conditions and permitted incompetent employees and security personnel to carry firearms during the course and scope of their employment. 

Forte’s suit alleged six counts against the defendants, including negligence, battery, civil conspiracy and dram-shop liability.

A jury trial had been requested prior to the settlement.

Neither side had a comment for this story.


BLOG COMMENTS POWERED BY DISQUS

Find us on Facebook
Follow Us
Find Us on YouTube
Find Us on Instagram
Sign Up for Our Newsletter