You are here: / / No Liability for Third Party Attack Inside Apartment Building; No Evidence...
,

No Liability for Third Party Attack Inside Apartment Building; No Evidence Defendant Aware of Alleged Door-Lock Defect

The First Department determined the defendant Housing Authority could not be held liable for a criminal attack inside plaintiff’s apartment building absent proof the entry door lock was defective (and defendant had actual or constructive knowledge of the defect) or that defendant knew the door could be opened without a key:

While an assault on a young victim is most disturbing, a possessor of land is not an insurer of the safety of those who come onto its premises … . It remains that plaintiff’s injuries were the immediate and proximate result of a criminal attack committed by third parties, for whose actions the landlord is not responsible absent a failure to provide “even the most rudimentary security” of an entry door lock … . In the absence of proof that the Housing Authority contributed to the injuries sustained by plaintiff, a visitor to its premises, by failing to timely repair a “visible and apparent” defect in its front-door lock, no liability can be imposed … .  Batista v City of New York, 2013 NY Slip Op 05502, 1st  Dept 7-30-13

 

You might also like
IT WAS AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION TO RETURN THE CHILD TO MOTHER DURING THE PENDENCY OF NEGLECT PROCEEDINGS; MOTHER HAD INJURED THE CHILD AND THERE WAS INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE THE IMPOSITION OF CONDITIONS FOR THE CHILD’S RETURN WILL ENSURE THE CHILD’S SAFETY (FIRST DEPT).
In a Hybrid Action, the Causes of Action Seeking Money Damages Were Distinct from the Causes of Action Seeking Annulment of Town a Resolution/Four-Month Statute of Limitations Did Not Apply to Causes of Action Seeking Money Damages
NO INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL FROM DENIAL OF A CIVIL MOTION MADE IN THE CONTEXT OF A CRIMINAL PROCEEDING.
SUIT ALLEGING BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY IN CONNECTION WITH THE SALE OF AN ASSET OWNED NEARLY ENTIRELY BY BANKRUPT LEHMAN BROTHERS DISMISSED.
INSURANCE REGULATION WHICH PROHIBITS TITLE INSURERS FROM PROVIDING VALUABLE INDUCEMENTS TO ATTRACT TITLE INSURANCE BUSINESS IS NOT UNCONSTITUTIONALLY VAGUE, SUPREME COURT REVERSED (FIRST DEPT).
IN THE CONTEXT OF AN INDEMNIFICATION CLAUSE REQUIRED BY THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW, THE 1ST DEPARTMENT NOTED THAT, UNDER THE COMMON LAW, UNSIGNED DOCUMENTS ARE ENFORCEABLE AS LONG AS THE PARTIES INTENDED TO BE BOUND (FIRST DEPT).
EXPERT EVIDENCE THAT A SAFETY DEVICE WAS NOT NECESSARY IN THIS FALLING OBJECTS CASE DID NOT CREATE A QUESTION OF FACT, PLAINTIFF ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION (FIRST DEPT).
A Counteroffer Extinguishes the Initial Offer Which Cannot Be Unilaterally Revived by Subsequent Acceptance

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Behavior Did Not Warrant Removal from Hearing 16-Ounce “Portion Cap Rule” for Sugary Drinks Invalid