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
AFTER FINDING SPOLIATION OF EVIDENCE BY DEFENDANTS, THE JUDGE FASHIONED AN ADVERSE INFERENCE JURY INSTRUCTION TO BE GIVEN AT TRIAL; THE CHARGE IMPROPERLY REQUIRED, RATHER THAN PERMITTED, THE JURY TO FIND SPOLIATION; THE JUDGE WAS ORDERED TO REVISE THE CHARGE (FIRST DEPT).
COMMUNICATIONS BETWEEN PLAINTIFFS’ FINANCIAL ADVISOR AND COUNSEL DURING THE SALE OF PLAINTIFFS’ BUSINESS TO DEFENDANT ARE PRIVILEGED (FIRST DEPT).
INABILITY TO IMPOSE THE PROMISED SENTENCE REQUIRED THAT DEFENDANT’S GUILTY PLEA BE VACATED (FIRST DEPT).
DEFAMATION ACTION BASED UPON A REPORTER’S NAMING THE WRONG TEACHER AS HAVING BULLIED A FIFTH-GRADER PROPERLY DISMISSED; THE REPORTER HAD SUFFICIENT REASON TO RELY ON THE STUDENT’S MOTHER AND ANOTHER SOURCE BOTH OF WHOM PROVIDED THE WRONG NAME (FIRST DEPT).
THE FACT THAT PLAINTIFF SLIPPED AND FELL DOWN A PERMANENT CONCRETE STAIRWAY DID NOT REMOVE THE INCIDENT FROM THE REACH OF LABOR LAW 240(1); PLAINTIFF’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).
FIREFIGHTER’S DEATH DURING A TRAINING EXERCISE NOT ACTIONABLE UNDER GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW 205-a AND LABOR LAW 27-a (FIRST DEPT).
Trial Court Abused Its Discretion When It Disqualified Defense Counsel Over Defendant’s Objection on Conflict of Interest Grounds—The Fact that a Co-Defendant Had Been Represented by Another Attorney from the New York County Defender Services (NYCDS) Did Not Create a Conflict for Defendant’s NYCDS Attorney—Defendant’s Attorney Did Not Have Access to Any Information Provided by the Co-Defendant (Who Had Already Pled Out)—Client Confidences Are Not Generally Shared by Attorneys Within a Large Institution Like the NYCDS, As They Might Be Within a Private Law Firm
Trial Judge’s Failure to Conduct an Inquiry Concerning a Juror’s Conduct During the Trial Required Reversal

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...