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
PLAINTIFF WAS STRUCK BY A PIECE OF UNSECURED PLYWOOD WHICH FELL, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
THE DEFENSE DID NOT NEED TO PROVIDE PLAINTIFF WITH “EXPERT-OPINION” NOTICE OF ITS INTENT TO CALL PLAINTIFF’S TREATING PHYSICIAN TO TESTIFY THAT PLAINTIFF’S COGNITIVE DEFICITS WERE THE RESULT OF A PRIOR STROKE, NOT THE TRAFFIC ACCIDENT; THE DOCTOR’S TESTIMONY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN PRECLUDED AND THE $2,000,000 VERDICT SHOULD HAVE BEEN SET ASIDE (SECOND DEPT).
DESIGNATING PETITION SHOULD HAVE BEEN VALIDATED, SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE INVALIDATED TWO SIGNATURES BECAUSE THE CANDIDATE WAS NOT GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND TO THE ALLEGATION, MADE DURING CROSS-EXAMINATION AT A HEARING, THAT THE TWO SIGNATURES WERE INVALID (SECOND DEPT).
THE SEPARATION AGREEMENT PROVIDED THAT THE PARTIES “SHALL” CONSULT EACH OTHER ON HEALTH DECISIONS FOR THE CHILD BUT FATHER HAD THE CHILD INOCULATED WITHOUT CONSULTING MOTHER; BECAUSE THE PARTIES AGREED THE CHILD WOULD ATTEND PUBLIC SCHOOL, AND INOCULATION IS REQUIRED BY THE PUBLIC HEALTH LAW, MOTHER DID NOT DEMONSTRATE SHE WAS PREJUDICED BY THE BREACH OF THE SEPARATION AGREEMENT; THEREFORE MOTHER’S MOTION TO HOLD HUSBAND IN CONTEMPT WAS PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT).
SEPARATION AGREEMENT MET THE CRITERIA OF THE ADOPTION STATUTE, PETITION TO ADOPT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED FOR LACK OF STANDING (SECOND DEPT).
BECAUSE THERE WAS EVIDENCE PLAINTIFF FELL OFF A BEAM IN THIS LABOR LAW 240(1) ACTION, IN ADDITION TO EVIDENCE HE TRIPPED OVER DEBRIS, THE TRIAL JUDGE ERRED IN REFUSING TO INSTRUCT THE JURY TO DECIDE WHETHER PLAINTIFF FELL OFF THE BEAM, MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
ALTHOUGH THE MORTGAGE CONTINGENCY PROVISION OF THE PURCHASE CONTRACT WAS NO LONGER OPERABLE BECAUSE THE MORTGAGE COMMITMENT WAS REVOKED AFTER THE CONTINGENCY PERIOD HAD ELAPSED, THE SELLER’S BAD FAITH WARRANTED RETURN OF THE DOWN PAYMENT (SECOND DEPT).
Need for Appointment of a Guardian of Property Not Demonstrated, Criteria Explained

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...