You are here: / / REJECTING THE 2ND DEPARTMENT’S CRITICISM OF THE 1ST DEPARTMENT’S...
, ,

REJECTING THE 2ND DEPARTMENT’S CRITICISM OF THE 1ST DEPARTMENT’S THIRD-PARTY-ASSAULT JURISPRUDENCE, THE 1ST DEPARTMENT HELD THE BROKEN DOOR THROUGH WHICH THE ASSAILANTS GAINED ACCESS TO THE BUILDING WHERE PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT WAS SHOT AND KILLED WAS NOT A PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE SHOOTING BECAUSE THE ASSAILANTS WOULD HAVE FOUND A WAY TO ENTER THE BUILDING EVEN IF THE DOOR LOCK WERE WORKING (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined the landlord, New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA), was not liable for the shooting death of plaintiff’s decedent, Murphy, despite conclusive video evidence the locking mechanism on the door the assailants used to enter plaintiff’s decedent’s building was broken. Disagreeing with the Second Department’s characterization of the First Department’s jurisprudence in similar third-party assault cases, the First Department held that the assailants were intent on shooting plaintiff’s decedent and would have gained entrance to the building even if the locking mechanism worked. Therefore the assailants’ actions constituted the sole proximate cause of plaintiff’s decedent’s death:

We disagree with the [Second Department’s] implication that under this Court’s jurisprudence the fact that a victim was targeted obviates the need for any inquiry into the security measures in place at the subject premises. Indeed, we are aware of no case in the First Department that suggests that a landowner would avoid liability even if minimal precautions would have actually prevented a determined assailant from gaining access. In reality, however, that is hardly ever the case. In Buckeridge v Broadie (5 AD3d 298, 300), … the assailants were “sophisticated” and disguised themselves to gain entry. In Cerda v 2962 Decatur Ave. Owners Corp. (306 AD2d 169, 170 [1st Dept 2003]) … the plaintiff was assaulted by a “team of assassins.” … [C]ases confirm that this Court has not abandoned the notion that more than the simple fact that a victim was targeted is necessary to shield a property owner from liability. … [T]he cases confirm that, given the minimal steps a landowner is required to take to secure premises, it has no duty to outwit or outthink those who are determined to overcome those steps.

The record establishes that Murphy’s killers were intent on gaining access to the building. … [C]onsidering that at least one other person, by all appearances oblivious to the brouhaha … , entered the building at the same time, it does not take a leap of the imagination to surmise that [the assailants] would have gained access to the building by following another person in or forcing such a person to let them in. This negates the unlocked door as a proximate cause of the harm that befell Murphy, and makes her assailants’ murderous intent the only proximate cause. Estate of Murphy v New York City Hous. Auth., 2021 NY Slip Op 02246, First Dept 4-13-21

 

You might also like
ALTHOUGH THE INCONSISTENT VERDICT ARGUMENT WAS NOT PRESERVED, THE FAILURE TO AWARD DAMAGES FOR FUTURE PAIN AND SUFFERING, IN THE FACE OF AWARDING DAMAGES FOR PAST PAIN AND SUFFERING AND FUTURE MEDICAL EXPENSES, REQUIRED A NEW TRIAL ON THAT ISSUE (FIRST DEPT).
THE PORT AUTHORITY DEMONSTRATED IT WAS NOT LIABLE FOR PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT’S DEATH BY SUICIDE; PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT CLIMBED OVER A FOUR-FOOT-TALL PEDESTRIAN RAILING AND JUMPED OFF THE GEORGE WASHINGTON BRIDGE (FIRST DEPT).
FAILURE TO CITE STATUTORY BASIS FOR MOTION TO VACATE DEFAULT IN NOTICE OF MOTION NOT FATAL, QUESTION WHETHER DEFENDANT WAS SERVED IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION REQUIRED A TRAVERSE HEARING, BECAUSE DEFENDANT DID NOT RESIDE AT THE SUBJECT PROPERTY CPLR 3215(g)(3) NOTICE NOT REQUIRED (FIRST DEPT).
DEFENDANT PROPERTY OWNER’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SIDEWALK SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER AREA WHERE PLAINTIFF FELL WAS THE PROPERTY OWNER’S RESPONSIBILITY UNDER THE NYC ADMINISTRATIVE CODE OR THE CITY’S RESPONSIBILITY AS PART OF A BUS STOP (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF, WORKING FOR A SUBSIDIARY OF VERIZON, WAS INJURED LAYING A CABLE UNDER A CITY STREET; THE MAJORITY HELD THERE WERE QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER A FRANCHISE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY AND VERIZON AND/OR THE ISSUANCE OF A CITY PERMIT RENDERED THE CITY A PROPER DEFENDANT; A TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT DISAGREED (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF CAN PRESENT EXPERT TESTIMONY ABOUT THE AMOUNT OF PLAINTIFF’S LEGAL COSTS ATTRIBUTABLE TO DEFENDANT-ATTORNEY’S ALLEGED USE OF AN ALLEGEDLY FORGED DOCUMENT IN LITIGATION IN VIOLATION OF JUDICIARY LAW 487 (FIRST DEPT).
Although the Elevator Maintenance Company May Have Been Negligent, Under “Espinal,” the Company Did Not Owe a Duty of Care to the Plaintiff—There Was No Evidence the Maintenance Company “Launched an Instrument of Harm,” the Only Available Theory of Liability (Re: Plaintiff) Which Could Have Arisen from the Maintenance Contract
COURT SHOULD HAVE INQUIRED OF JURORS WHETHER THEIR CONCERNS ABOUT NOT BEING PAID BY THEIR EMPLOYERS DURING JURY DUTY WOULD AFFECT THEIR ABILITY TO RENDER AN IMPARTIAL VERDICT, NEW TRIAL ORDERED (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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

THE PROPERTY OWNER WAS NOT LIABLE FOR THE ACTIONS OF THE INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR;... A THEORY ASSERTED FOR THE FIRST TIME IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY...