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
PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO SATISFY A NON-MATERIAL CONDITION PRECEDENT DID NOT JUSTIFY THE AWARD OF SUMMARY JUDGMENT TO DEFENDANT (FIRST DEPT).
THE COMPLAINT ALLEGED THE ICY CONDITION EXISTED BEFORE 10 INCHES OF SNOW FELL, DEFENDANTS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THEY DID NOT HAVE NOTICE OF THE ICE, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF DID NOT PLACE HER PRIOR KNEE INJURIES IN CONTROVERSY BY ALLEGING A LOSS OF ENJOYMENT OF LIFE, THEREFORE PLAINTIFF DID NOT WAIVE HER PATIENT-PHYSICIAN PRIVILEGE RE: THE KNEE-INJURY MEDICAL RECORDS, THE FIRST DEPT DECIDED NOT TO FOLLOW THE 2ND DEPT’S CONTRARY RULING, EXTENSIVE TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT (FIRST DEPT).
Criteria for Denial of Trustee Commission for Misconduct Explained (Commission Was Not Denied Here)
WHEN A COURT DECIDES AN ACTION BROUGHT AS A SPECIAL PROCEEDING SHOULD HAVE BEEN BROUGHT AS A PLENARY ACTION, THE ACTION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED BECAUSE IT WAS BROUGHT IN THE WRONG FORM; THE PETITION SOULD BE DEEMED A COMPLAINT, NOT A MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (FIRST DEPT).
CONTRACT WAS AMBIGUOUS CONCERNING WHETHER PLAINTIFF BROKER WAS ENTITLED TO A COMMISSION, SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANTS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).
THE COMPLAINT STATED CAUSES OF ACTION FOR BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY, FRAUD, CONSTRUCTIVE FRAUD AND MUTUAL MISTAKE; PLAINTIFFS-PHYSICIANS ALLEGED THE FORMS THE EMPLOYER REQUIRED THEM TO SIGN CONSENTING TO THE DISTRIBUTION (TO THE EMPLOYER) OF THE PROCEEDS OF THE DEMUTUALIZATION OF THE MEDICAL MALPRACTICE INSURER WERE INVALID (FIRST DEPT).
LOSS OF RESTAURANT CUSTOMERS DUE TO COVID DOES NOT CONSTITUTE “DIRECT PHYSICAL LOSS OR DAMAGE” WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE BUSINESS-INTERRUPTION INSURANCE POLICY (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...