You are here: / / KILLING OF PLAINTIFF IN HER OFFICE WAS NOT FORESEEABLE BY THE BUILDING...
,

KILLING OF PLAINTIFF IN HER OFFICE WAS NOT FORESEEABLE BY THE BUILDING OWNERS OR TENANTS.

The First Department determined the death of plaintiff in her office (caused by nonparty Tarloff) was not foreseeable and the building owners and tenants could not therefore be liable in negligence:

​

Even though the building contained a psychiatric suite, defendants had no duty to protect decedent from the violent actions of third parties, including former patients like Tarloff; such actions were not foreseeable, given the absence of prior violent criminal activity by Tarloff or other third parties in the building … .

Even assuming that defendants had a duty to provide “minimal precautions” … , that duty was satisfied by the provision of 24/7 doorman coverage, surveillance cameras, controlled building access, and functioning locks on the doors of the office suite and decedent’s personal office … . It is purely speculative that additional security measures — such as announcing visitors, installing an office intercom or buzzer, or keeping the office doors locked after hours — would have prevented Tarloff from killing decedent.

Any claims that the door man was negligent in failing to recognize Tarloff’s suspicious behavior was not a proximate cause of decedent’s death because it was still not foreseeable that Tarloff was about to engage in a murderous rampage. Tarloff’s conduct was a superceding cause severing the causal chain. Given that the attack was targeted and premeditated, it is “unlikely that any reasonable security measures would have deterred [Tarloff]” … . Faughey v New 56-79 IG Assoc., L.P., 2017 NY Slip Op 02608, 1st Dept 4-4-17

 

NEGLIGENCE (KILLING OF PLAINTIFF IN HER OFFICE WAS NOT FORESEEABLE BY THE BUILDING OWNERS OR TENANTS)/ASSAULT (NEGLIGENCE, KILLING OF PLAINTIFF IN HER OFFICE WAS NOT FORESEEABLE BY THE BUILDING OWNERS OR TENANTS)/FORESEEABILITY (KILLING OF PLAINTIFF IN HER OFFICE WAS NOT FORESEEABLE BY THE BUILDING OWNERS OR TENANTS)

You might also like
QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER THE BUILDING MANAGEMENT COMPANY WAS LIABLE, PURSUANT TO ESPINAL FACTORS, FOR INFANT PLAINTIFF’S FALL INTO THE ELEVATOR SHAFT (FIRST DEPT).
ABSENCE OF ADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE OF CONSIDERATION RENDERED ANY WRITTEN OR ORAL GUARANTEE UNENFORCEABLE (FIRST DEPT).
8 TO 12 INCH HEIGHT DIFFERENTIAL NOT ACTIONABLE, LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).
DEFENDANT HAD SUFFICIENT CONTACTS WITH NEW YORK TO ALLOW THIS BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION TO BE BROUGHT IN NEW YORK (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFFS’ LEGAL MALPRACTICE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED; PLAINTIFFS’ 2010 BREACH OF A CONDOMINIUM-SALE CONTRACT ACTION WAS DISMISSED ON STATUTE OF FRAUDS GROUNDS; WHEN A WRITTEN CONTRACT SUBSEQUENTLY SURFACED, DEFENDANT ATTORNEYS DID NOT MOVE TO RENEW, VACATE OR APPEAL THE ORDER (FIRST DEPT).
Evidence Which Is “Material and Necessary” in the Context of Discovery Is Much Broader in Scope than Evidence Which Is Admissible at Trial
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, DESPITE PLAINTIFF’S AFFIDAVIT WHICH, IN PART, CONTRADICTED HIS DEPOSITION TESTIMONY (FIRST DEPT).
JURY SHOULD HAVE BEEN CHARGED ON THE RES IPSA LOQUITUR DOCTRINE AND INSTRUCTED THAT THE VIOLATION OF THE NYC ADMINISTRATIVE CODE IS SOME EVIDENCE OF NEGLIGENCE IN THIS FALLING OBJECT CASE, NEW TRIAL ORDERED (FIRST DEPT).

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

WARRANTS ISSUED TO FACEBOOK UNDER THE STORED COMMUNICATIONS ACT CANNOT BE TREATED... QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER CONTINUOUS REPRESENTATION DOCTRINE RENDERED LEGAL MALPRACTICE...