You are here: / / DEFENDANT PROPERTY OWNER DEMONSTRATED THERE HAD BEEN NO CRIMINAL ACTIVITY...

DEFENDANT PROPERTY OWNER DEMONSTRATED THERE HAD BEEN NO CRIMINAL ACTIVITY ON THE PROPERTY IN THE PAST AND PLAINTIFF FAILED TO RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE FAILURE TO SECURE THE ALLEYWAY WAS A PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE THIRD-PARTY ASSAULT; DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant property owner’s motion for summary judgment in this third-party assault case should have been granted. The defendant demonstrated there had been no prior criminal activity on the property and did not raise a question of fact whether the failure to secure the alleyway was a proximate cause of the attack:

… [T]he infant plaintiff testified that while he was in the building’s vestibule, he was accosted by an unknown assailant and assaulted in the alleyway on the side of the building. The infant plaintiff, by his father and natural guardian, and his father suing derivatively, commenced this action against the defendant, alleging that the defendant failed to secure the alleyway.

To recover damages from an owner of real property for injuries caused by criminal acts on the premises, a plaintiff must produce evidence indicating that the owner knew or should have known of the probability of conduct on the part of third persons which was likely to endanger the safety of those lawfully on the premises … . Here, the defendant established, prima facie, its entitlement to summary judgment by showing that it had no notice of prior criminal activity so as to make the instant occurrence foreseeable. The plaintiffs submitted no evidence in response, and thus failed to raise a triable issue of fact … . Moreover, in opposition to the defendant’s prima facie showing with respect to causation, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the defendant’s alleged failure to secure the alleyway was a proximate cause of the occurrence … . Calle v Elmhurst Woodside, LLC, 2020 NY Slip Op 08033, Second Dept 12-30-20

 

You might also like
THE CONTRACT BETWEEN DEFENDANT AIRWAY CLEANERS AND DEFENDANT AMERICAN AIRLINES IN THIS AIRPORT SLIP AND FALL CASE DID NOT ENTIRELY DISPLACE AMERICAN AIRLINES’ DUTY TO KEEP THE BATHROOM SAFE; THEREFORE THE CONTRACT COULD NOT SERVE AS THE BASIS FOR AIRWAY CLEANERS’ LIABILTY TO PLAINTIFF UNDER ESPINAL (SECOND DEPT).
SCHOOL OWED NO DUTY OF CARE TO STUDENT STRUCK BY A CAR AFTER LEAVING THE SCHOOL WITH PERMISSION.
Defendant Shoveled Sidewalk and Snow Piled on Either Side Melted/Question of Fact Whether Defendant Created the Dangerous Condition Resulting from Subsequent Freezing of Melted Snow
SURGEON, WHO HAD NO MEMORY OF PLAINTIFF’S PROCEDURE, SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO TESTIFY ABOUT HIS USUAL CUSTOM AND PRACTICE IN PERFORMING A HERNIA REPAIR, DEFENSE JUDGMENT REVERSED IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT CLAIMED HE TOOK POSSESSION OF THE VICTIM’S GUN AND FIRED AFTER THE VICTIM FIRED AT HIM; DEFENDANT WAS ACQUITTED OF ATTEMPTED MURDER, ATTEMPTED ASSAULT AND ASSAULT BUT CONVICTED OF CRIMINAL POSSESSION OF A WEAPON; THE JURY SHOULD HAVE BEEN INSTRUCTED ON “TEMPORARY LAWFUL POSSESSION OF A WEAPON;” NEW TRIAL ORDERED (SECOND DEPT).
THE BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1303, INCLUDING THE REQUIRED TYPE SIZE; THE BANK’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
VIOLATION OF SANDOVAL RULING REQUIRED A NEW TRIAL, DEFENDANT DID NOT OPEN THE DOOR TO THE IMPROPER QUESTIONS.
Supreme Court Should Not Have Denied Motion to Set Aside a Stipulation of Settlement Without a Hearing, Criteria Explained/Lower Court Properly Considered Issues Raised for the First Time in Plaintiff’s Reply Papers Because Defendant Availed Himself of the Opportunity to Oppose the Contentions at Oral Argument

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

AN INSURER WHO HAS NO DUTY TO DEFEND THE INSUREDS BECAUSE OF LATE NOTIFICATION,... THE FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS TIME-BARRED; THE DISCONTINUANCE DID NOT DE-ACCELERATE...