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 DEFENDANT TOWN DID NOT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE NEW YORK VOTING RIGHTS ACT (NYVRA) AND WAS THEREFORE INELIGIBLE FOR THE 90-DAY “SAFE HARBOR” EXTENSION TO ADDRESS THE VIOLATION OF THE NYVRA ALLEGED BY PLAINTIFF-CITIZENS (SECOND DEPT).
THE DEFENSE EXPERT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO OFFER A SPECULATIVE CONCLUSION ABOUT HOW PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED WHICH WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY ANY EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD; PLANTIFF ALLEGED THE STEP STOOL SHE WAS STANDING ON COLLAPSED; THE DEFENSE EXPERT TESTIFIED SHE COULD HAVE FALLEN ONTO THE STOOL; THE DEFENSE VERDICT SHOULD HAVE BEEN SET ASIDE (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT WAS NOT AN ALTER EGO OF PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYER, PLAINTIFF WAS NOT DEFENDANT’S SPECIAL EMPLOYEE, PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION BASED UPON THE ALLEGATION THE LADDER MOVED FOR NO APPARENT REASON, NOTWITHSTANDING EVIDENCE PLAINTIFF MAY HAVE SAID HE PLACED THE LADDER ON A DROP CLOTH (SECOND DEPT).
DISTRIBUTING A LETTER WHICH DEALT WITH RELIGIOUS (NATION OF ISLAM) INFORMATION DID NOT VIOLATE ANY PRISON GUIDELINES OR POLICIES, MISBEHAVIOR DETERMINATION ANNULLED (SECOND DEPT).
Court Properly Accepted Defendant’s Consent to the Determination He Is a Sex Offender Requiring Strict and Intensive Supervision and Treatment (SIST)—The Relevant Statute Does Not Mandate a Hearing
BECAUSE SOME OF THE ACTS CRIMINALIZED IN THE FLORIDA STATUTE CONSTITUTE NEW YORK VIOLENT FELONIES AND SOME DO NOT, THE FLORIDA ACCUSATORY INSTRUMENT MUST BE CONSULTED TO DETERMINE THE PRECISE ACTS INVOLVED; THE SECOND VIOLENT FELONY OFFENDER ADJUDICATION WAS VACATED AND THE MATTER WAS SENT BACK FOR A HEARING (SECOND DEPT).
THE ALLEGATION THE CAR IN FRONT MADE A SUDDEN STOP DOES NOT RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT IN A REAR-END COLLISION (SECOND DEPT).
Strict Foreclosure and Reforeclosure Actions Not Available Against Easement Holder

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 © 2025 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...