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
THE INDEMNIFICATION CLAUSE IN THIS LADDER-FALL CASE STATED THAT THE CONTRACTOR FOR WHOM THE INJURED PLAINTIFF WORKED WOULD HOLD THE “OWNER’S AGENT” HARMLESS AND DID NOT MENTION THE PROPERTY OWNER; THE CONTRACT MUST BE STRICTLY CONSTRUED; THE PROPERTY OWNER’S INDEMNIFICATION ACTION AGAINST THE CONTRACTOR SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT). ​
PETITIONER, WHO IS NOT RELATED TO THE CHILD, DID NOT HAVE STANDING BY EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL TO SEEK CUSTODY OR VISITATION; CRITERIA EXPLAINED (FIRST DEPT).
THE ALLEGATIONS THAT DEFENDANT’ GRABBED PLAINTIFF’S SHOULDERS AND TOUCHED PLAINTIFF’S CHEEKS DID NOT STATE CAUSES OF ACTION FOR TORTIOUS “FORCIBLE TOUCHING” OR FOR INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS; COMPLAINT DISMISSED OVER AN EXTENSIVE DISSENT (FIRST DEPT).
ALTHOUGH DEFENDANTS’ INSURER OBTAINED A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT (BY DEFAULT) THAT IT WAS NOT OBLIGATED TO PAY NO-FAULT BENEFITS TO PLAINTIFF PEDESTRIAN IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE, THE DECLARATORY JUDGMENT DID NOT PRECLUDE, UNDER EITHER CLAIM OR ISSUE PRECLUSION, PLAINTIFF’S PERSONAL INJURY ACTION AGAINST DEFENDANTS (FIRST DEPT).
IN THIS COMPLEX EXCESS INSURANCE CASE, WHICH INCLUDED A REVERSAL BY THE COURT OF APPEALS, THE LAW-OF-THE-CASE AND RES-JUDICATA DOCTRINES DID NOT DICTATE THE OUTCOME AND THE EXCESS INSURANCE CARRIER WAS NOT OBLIGATED TO DEFEND OR INDEMNIFY IN THE UNDERLYING PERSONAL INJURY ACTION (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF STATED A HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT CAUSE OF ACTION WITH THE ALLEGATION (AMONG OTHERS) THAT HIS ACCENT WAS MOCKED, BUT PLAINTIFF DID NOT DEMONSTATE HIS DEMOTION WAS RELATED TO SUCH ANIMUS; THERFORE THE DISCRIMINATION CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).
RESPONDENT, THE PREVAILING PARTY IN AN ARBITRATION, WAS ENTITLED TO ATTORNEY’S FEES FOR THE SUBSEQUENT ARTICLE 75 PROCEEDING TO VACATE THE AWARD AND FOR THE APPEAL TO THE APPELLATE DIVISION (FIRST DEPT).
Malpractice Cause of Action Stated Against an Attorney Who Died Just Before the Statute of Limitations on Plaintiffs’ Action Ran Out

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