You are here: / / PLAINTIFF WAS SHOT INSIDE DEFENDANT’S BUILDING, DEFENDANT LANDLORD...
,

PLAINTIFF WAS SHOT INSIDE DEFENDANT’S BUILDING, DEFENDANT LANDLORD DEMONSTRATED IT DID NOT HAVE NOTICE OF AN ALLEGED BROKEN LOCK, THE EVIDENCE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE ASSAILANT WAS AN INTRUDER AS OPPOSED TO AN INVITED GUEST, AND THERE WAS EVIDENCE PLAINTIFF WAS THE VICTIM OF A TARGETED ATTACK, DEFENDANT LANDLORD’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the NYC Housing Authority’s (NYCHA’s) motion for summary judgment should have been granted in this third-party assault case. Plaintiff was shot inside the building. Defendant demonstrated it did not have notice of an alleged broken lock which would have allowed an intruder to enter the building. And the evidence did not demonstrate the assailant was an intruder as opposed to an invited guest. In addition, plaintiff admitted he was the victim of a targeted attack, which severed any causal relationship with defendant’s alleged negligence:

… [P]laintiff alleges that he was injured when, while visiting his wife in NYCHA’s building, he was shot by defendant Lawrence, who was able to enter the building because of a broken lock on the building’s front door. The record establishes that NYCHA lacked notice of a broken lock inasmuch as NYCHA submitted evidence showing that although the front door lock had been repaired a number of times in the months leading up to the incident, NYCHA’s supervisor of caretakers testified that the lock was working on the morning of the incident, and for almost a full week beforehand … .

The evidence also fails to show that the alleged assailant was an unauthorized intruder, rather than an invited guest … . The alleged assailant testified that he lived across from the subject building, that he had numerous family members and friends who lived in the building, and that he was a frequent visitor of the building. Furthermore, plaintiff admitted that he was the victim of a targeted attack by the alleged assailant, which severed the causal nexus between NYCHA’s alleged negligence and plaintiff’s injuries … . Roldan v New York City Hous. Auth., 2019 NY Slip Op 02462, First Dept 4-2-19

 

You might also like
QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER THE INCAPACITATED PERSON (IP) WAS “INSANE” WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE CPLR WHEN HE WAS REPRESENTED BY THE DEFENDANT ATTORNEY MUST BE DETERMINED AT THE LEGAL MALPRACTICE TRIAL; IF THE IP WAS INSANE, THE MALPRACTICE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS WILL BE TOLLED; IF NOT THE MALPRACTICE ACTION IS UNTIMELY (FIRST DEPT).
DEFENDANT POLICE OFFICER WAS ENGAGED IN AN “EMERGENCY OPERATION” WITHIN THE MEANING OF VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW 1104 WHEN HIS POLICE VAN STRUCK PLAINTIFF AS SHE STEPPED INTO THE ROAD FROM BETWEEN PARKED CARS; DEFENDANT DID NOT ACT WITH RECKLESS DISREGARD FOR THE SAFETY OF OTHERS AND, THEREFORE, COULD NOT BE HELD LIABLE FOR PLAINTIFF’S INJURIES (FIRST DEPT).
FAILURE TO GIVE SUPPLEMENTAL INSTRUCTIONS TO CLARIFY THE SHARED INTENT REQUIREMENTS FOR ACCOMPLICE LIABILITY DEPRIVED DEFEFNDANTS OF A FAIR TRIAL.
Defamation Action Brought by Judge Against a Reporter Properly Dismissed—Although the Reporter Made Defamatory Statements Which Were Not Privileged, the Judge Failed to Raise a Question of Fact About Malice as a Motivation
NEW YORK LABOR LAW WORK-PAY REQUIREMENTS DO NOT APPLY TO WORK DONE OUT-OF-STATE (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF APPARENTLY FELL FROM A WET, SLIPPERY WOODEN LADDER; HE WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE ACTION; NO NEED TO SHOW THE LADDER WAS INHERENTLY DEFECTIVE (FIRST DEPT).
ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF FELL OFF A LOADING DOCK WHILE WAITING TO SIGN IN TO WORK IN A BUILDING, HIS INJURY OCCURRED AT THE CONSTRUCTION SITE AND WHILE HE WAS ENGAGED IN WORK INVOLVING A GRAVITY-RELATED RISK WITHIN THE MEANING OF LABOR LAW 240 (1) (FIRST DEPT).
IT WAS SUFFICIENTLY ALLEGED THE RELEASE WAS INDUCED BY FRAUD; THE COMPLAINT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (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

MISSING CHAIR IN FRONT OF A SLOT MACHINE IS OPEN AND OBVIOUS AND NONACTIONABLE,... ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNER NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR TRIP AND FALL IN TREE WELL NEAR...