You are here: / / THE FACT THAT PLAINTIFF WAS SPECIFICALLY TARGETED FOR A HOME INVASION DID...
,

THE FACT THAT PLAINTIFF WAS SPECIFICALLY TARGETED FOR A HOME INVASION DID NOT PRECLUDE A FINDING THAT INADEQUATE BUILDING SECURITY WAS A PROXIMATE CAUSE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant property owners should not have been awarded summary judgment in this home invasion case. The fact that plaintiff was specifically targeted did not preclude a finding that building security was inadequate:

Plaintiff was the victim of a home invasion of his apartment in a building owned and operated by defendants. The incident began when someone knocked on plaintiff’s apartment door and asked by name for his niece, who also lived in the apartment. When plaintiff looked through the peephole, he thought he saw a young woman, but the peephole was blurry, as it had been since plaintiff had moved in three or four years earlier. Plaintiff also testified that the chain guard on the door did not function properly. When plaintiff opened the door slightly, the young woman and a man he had not seen through the peephole pushed their way into the apartment and pistol whipped him. After demanding $5,000 that had purportedly been sent to plaintiff’s niece, the two assailants assaulted plaintiff for an extended period and looted the apartment before leaving.

Defendants failed to establish their entitlement to summary judgment dismissing the complaint, as evidence that an attack was targeted toward a particular person does not sever the proximate cause link as a matter of law in cases alleging negligent security … . In light of the record evidence that the building’s locks were malfunctioning, and that plaintiff’s apartment peephole and chain lock were defective, proximate cause is for the factfinder to decide … . Cabrera-Perez v Promesa Hous. Dev. Fund Corp., 2024 NY Slip Op 01338, First Dept 3-14-24

Practice Point: The fact that plaintiff was deliberately and specifically targeted for a home invasion did not preclude a finding that malfunctioning locks and a defective peephole constituted a proximate cause of the invasion and consequent injury.

 

You might also like
Allowing Testimony that Defendant’s Name Was Mentioned in an Out-of-Court Conversation About the Underlying Assault Was (Harmless) Error/The Confrontation Clause Was Not Implicated Because the Hearsay Was Not Testimonial/Admission of the Hearsay Was Not Justified as “Completing the Narrative” or “Preventing Jury Confusion”
EVEN THOUGH THE US SUPREME COURT CASE REQUIRING WARRANTS FOR CELL SITE LOCATION DATA WAS NOT DECIDED AT THE TIME OF TRIAL, PRESERVATION OF THAT ISSUE FOR APPEAL IS STILL NECESSARY; A DEFENDANT MAY BE INDICTED FOR BOTH DEPRAVED INDIFFERENCE AND INTENTIONAL MURDER; CONSECUTIVE SENTENCES FOR THE SHOOTINGS AND POSSESSION OF A WEAPON WERE APPROPRIATE (FIRST DEPT). ​
DEFENDANT’S SUBCONTRACTOR USED A PAINT STRIPPING PRODUCT DURING AN OFFICE BUILDING RENOVATION, PLAINTIFF, AN EVENING OFFICE CLEANER, ALLEGED INJURY FROM BREATHING TOXIC FUMES, THERE IS EVIDENCE DEFENDANT HAD A DUTY TO WARN, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY DENIED (FIRST DEPT).
PROSECUTION’S REVERSE-BATSON CHALLENGE TO PEREMPTORY JUROR CHALLENGES BY THE DEFENSE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, CONVICTION REVERSED (FIRST DEPT).
DEFENDANT IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO AMEND HIS ANSWER TO ASSERT A GRAVES AMENDMENT AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (AVAILABLE TO THE LESSOR OF A VEHICLE); PLAINTIFF WAS NOT PREJUDICED BY THE LATENESS OF THE MOTION (FIRST DEPT). ​
A TIMELY BUT DEFECTIVE ATTEMPT TO COMMENCE AN ARTICLE 78 PROCEEDING IS A JURISDICTIONAL DEFECT WHICH CANNOT BE CURED BY A SECOND ATTEMPT AFTER THE FOUR-MONTH STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS HAS RUN (FIRST DEPT).
DEFENDANTS’ DEMAND FOR A CHANGE OF VENUE WAS PROPERLY DISMISSED AS UNTIMELY UNDER THE ELECTRONIC FILING RULES (TO WHICH DEFENDANTS HAD CONSENTED).
16-Ounce “Portion Cap Rule” for Sugary Drinks Invalid

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

THE STATUTORY CRITERIA FOR A MOTION TO CHANGE VENUE IN CPLR 510(3) WERE NOT... A STACK OF DRYWALL LEANING AGAINST A WALL AND PARTIALLY BLOCKING A DOORWAY FELL...