You are here: / Landlord-Tenant
, , ,

IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, THE PARKING LOT WAS THE SUBJECT OF A LICENSE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY AND THE ATHLETIC CLUB, NOT A LEASE, THEREFORE THE OUT OF POSSESSION LANDLORD DOCTRINE WAS NOT APPLICABLE, ALTHOUGH THE LICENSE AGREEMENT REQUIRED THE ATHLETIC CLUB TO MAINTAIN THE PARKING LOT, THE LICENSE AGREEMENT IMPOSED CERTAIN MAINTENANCE DUTIES ON THE CITY AS WELL, THE CITY’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the defendant city did not demonstrate that it had relinquished control over the parking lot where plaintiff allegedly fell into an access pit. The access pit was exposed because a snow removal contractor pushed the cover off when plowing snow. The city had a license agreement with an athletic club, Fitmar, which required Fitmar to maintain the parking lot. Fitmar had hired the snow removal contractor. The city argued it was an out of possession landlord and the parking lot was solely Fitmar’s responsibility. The Second Department held that the parking lot was subject to a license agreement, not a lease, and therefore the out of possession landlord doctrine did not apply. The Second Department went on to find that the terms of the license agreement did not demonstrate as a matter of law that the city had relinquished control over the maintenance of the parking lot:

… [T]he license agreement granted Fitmar a license to use the premises, and not a leasehold interest … . Thus, the standard applied to out-of-possession landlords is inapplicable here … . Rather, the City, “as landowner, remains in presumptive control over its property and subject to the attendant obligations of ownership until it is found that control was relinquished” … .

The City failed to meet its prima facie burden of demonstrating that it relinquished control of the premises such that it owed no duty to the plaintiff to remedy the allegedly defective condition. While the license agreement assigned responsibility for maintenance of the premises, and specifically of the parking lot, to Fitmar, it vested the City with ultimate approval authority over Fitmar’s operating procedures. The City had unfettered access to the premises and could sponsor or promote its own special events at the premises. The agreement required a yearly inspection of the premises by the City to determine the extent of any repairs to be performed by Fitmar, and the City was permitted to inspect the premises at any time and direct Fitmar to undertake repairs. The City could maintain field personnel at the premises to observe the means and methods of anticipated construction work by Fitmar, and also reserved the right for the City to perform construction or maintenance work at the premises at any time. Fitmar’s former general manager testified at his deposition that the City conducted regular inspections of the premises, and that representatives of the Parks Department would often show up unannounced to conduct inspections. Agbosasa v City of New York, 2019 NY Slip Op 00250, Second Dept 1-16-19

 

,

PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT, WHO WAS DELIVERING MEALS ON WHEELS IN DEFENDANT’S BUILDING WHEN HE WAS ASSAULTED, ALLEGED THE ASSAILANT WAS AN INTRUDER WHO ENTERED THE BUILDING THROUGH A NEGLIGENTLY MAINTAINED ENTRANCE, THE LANDLORD’S DUTY TO PROTECT TENANTS EXTENDS TO GUESTS OF TENANTS, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court in this third-party assault case, determined the personal injury and wrongful death action against the landlord should not have been dismissed. Plaintiff’s decedent was delivering “meals on wheels” in the building when he was assaulted, allegedly by an intruder who allegedly entered the building through a negligently maintained entrance:

“Landlords have a common-law duty to take minimal precautions to protect tenants from foreseeable harm,’ including a third party’s foreseeable criminal conduct” … . This duty extends to the guests of a tenant … . A tenant or guest may recover damages, however, only on a showing that the landlord’s negligent conduct was a proximate cause of the injury… . “In premises security cases particularly, the necessary causal link between a landlord’s culpable failure to provide adequate security and a tenant’s injuries resulting from a criminal attack in the building can be established only if the assailant gained access to the premises through a negligently maintained entrance. Since even a fully secured entrance would not keep out another tenant, or someone allowed into the building by another tenant, plaintiff can recover only if the assailant was an intruder” … .

Here, the defendant established its prima facie entitlement to judgment of a matter of law by presenting evidence that the lock on the only entrance to 341 Dumont Avenue was operable on the day of the incident … . In opposition, however, the plaintiffs raised triable issues of fact as to whether the decedent’s assailant was an intruder who entered the building through a negligently maintained entrance … . Aminova v New York City Hous. Auth., 2019 NY Slip Op 00083, Second Dept 1-9-19

 

, , ,

HEARING WAS REQUIRED TO DETERMINE WHETHER A PERMANENT STAY OF EVICTION WAS A PROPER ACCOMMODATION FOR DISABLED TENANTS PURSUANT TO THE FAIR HOUSING ACT (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing (modifying) the Appellate Term, First Department, ruled that a hearing should be held to determine whether eviction proceedings should be permanently stayed. A guardian (GAL) had been appointed pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law article 81 for the disabled tenants who had not complied with stipulations for fumigation of the apartment to rid it of bed bugs. With the GAL’s help the apartment was eventually fumigated. Under the Fair Housing Act the tenants were entitled to accommodations for their disabilities. A hearing was required to determine whether a permanent stay of eviction was an appropriate accommodation:

Under the Fair Housing Act (FHA), as amended, it is unlawful to discriminate in housing practices on the basis of a “handicap” (42 USC § 3604[f][2][A]). Handicap is very broadly defined, and a person is considered handicapped and thereby protected under the FHA if he or she: 1. Has a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities, or 2. Has a record of such impairment, or 3. Is regarded as having such an impairment.

No specific diagnosis is necessary for a person to be “handicapped” and protected under the statute. In fact, the determination may even be based upon the observations of a lay person … . The appointment of an article 81 guardian for tenants sufficiently establishes that these tenants are “handicapped” within the meaning of the FHA, leading us to consider whether they are entitled to a reasonable accommodation. What is “reasonable” varies from case to case, because it is necessarily fact-specific  … . The overarching guiding factor, however, is that a landlord is obligated to provide a tenant with a reasonable accommodation if necessary for the tenant to keep his or her apartment. The ” refusal to make reasonable accommodations in rules, policies, practices, or services, when such accommodations may be necessary to afford [the handicapped individual] equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling'” is a discriminatory practice… . A landlord does not have to provide a reasonable accommodation if it puts other tenants at risk, but should consider whether such risks can be minimized … . Matter of Prospect Union Assoc. v DeJesus, 2018 NY Slip Op 09016, First Dept 12-27-18

 

,

LEASE INCLUDED AN EXPRESS PROVISION ALLOWING TENANT TO WITHHOLD RENT IF THE PREMISES IS DAMAGED AND NOT REPAIRED, THEREFORE WITHHOLDING RENT WAS NOT AN ELECTION OF REMEDIES AND THE TENANT COULD WITHHOLD RENT AND SUE FOR DAMAGES (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined that an express lease provision allowed the tenant to withhold rent when the property is damaged, and therefore the withholding of rent did not constitute an election of remedies:

The second affirmative defense stated that the tenant elected a remedy by not paying rent, and therefore the tenant is not entitled to damages. However, the lease contained an express provision that the tenant could withhold rent if the premises were damaged and not repaired. Generally, a tenant’s duty to continue to pay rent is not suspended if the tenant remains in possession of the leased premises, even if the landlord breaches its obligations under the lease, unless there is an express provision in the lease declaring the circumstances under which the tenant may withhold rent … . Such an express provision was present here. Therefore, the withholding of rent was not an election of remedies. Fifth Line, LLC v Fitch, 2018 NY Slip Op 08630, Second Dept 12-19-18

 

, , ,

ALTHOUGH THE PLAINTIFF LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY DID NOT EXIST AT THE TIME THE LEASE WAS SIGNED, DEFENDANT TOOK POSSESSION OF THE PROPERTY, UNDER THE DOCTRINE OF INCORPORATION BY ESTOPPEL, DEFENDANT CANNOT ESCAPE LIABILITY FOR BREACH OF THE LEASE (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department determined that the doctrine of incorporation by estoppel was properly applied in this  breach of contract (lease) case. Although plaintiff limited liability company did not exist at the time the lease was signed, defendant took possession of the property. Defendant was therefore estopped from escaping liability under the lease based on the nonexistence of plaintiff limited liability company:

“Since a nonexistent entity cannot acquire rights or assume liabilities, a corporation which has not yet been formed normally lacks capacity to enter into a contract”… . However, a corporation may be deemed to exist and possess the capacity to contract pursuant to the doctrine of incorporation by estoppel … . The doctrine of incorporation by estoppel, or corporation by estoppel, is based on the principle that “one who has recognized the organization as a corporation in business dealings should not be allowed to quibble or raise immaterial issues on matters which do not concern him [or her] in the slightest degree or affect his [or her] substantial rights” … . TY Bldrs. II, Inc. v 55 Day Spa, Inc., 2018 NY Slip Op 08345, Second Dept 12-5-18

CORPORATION LAW (INCORPORATION BY ESTOPPEL, ALTHOUGH THE PLAINTIFF LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY DID NOT EXIST AT THE TIME THE LEASE WAS SIGNED, DEFENDANT TOOK POSSESSION OF THE PROPERTY, UNDER THE DOCTRINE OF INCORPORATION BY ESTOPPEL, DEFENDANT CANNOT ESCAPE LIABILITY FOR BREACH OF THE LEASE (SECOND DEPT))/LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY LAW (INCORPORATION BY ESTOPPEL, ALTHOUGH THE PLAINTIFF LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY DID NOT EXIST AT THE TIME THE LEASE WAS SIGNED, DEFENDANT TOOK POSSESSION OF THE PROPERTY, UNDER THE DOCTRINE OF INCORPORATION BY ESTOPPEL, DEFENDANT CANNOT ESCAPE LIABILITY FOR BREACH OF THE LEASE (SECOND DEPT))/CONTRACT LAW  (INCORPORATION BY ESTOPPEL, ALTHOUGH THE PLAINTIFF LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY DID NOT EXIST AT THE TIME THE LEASE WAS SIGNED, DEFENDANT TOOK POSSESSION OF THE PROPERTY, UNDER THE DOCTRINE OF INCORPORATION BY ESTOPPEL, DEFENDANT CANNOT ESCAPE LIABILITY FOR BREACH OF THE LEASE (SECOND DEPT))/LANDLORD-TENANT (INCORPORATION BY ESTOPPEL, ALTHOUGH THE PLAINTIFF LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY DID NOT EXIST AT THE TIME THE LEASE WAS SIGNED, DEFENDANT TOOK POSSESSION OF THE PROPERTY, UNDER THE DOCTRINE OF INCORPORATION BY ESTOPPEL, DEFENDANT CANNOT ESCAPE LIABILITY FOR BREACH OF THE LEASE (SECOND DEPT))/ESTOPPEL  (INCORPORATION BY ESTOPPEL, ALTHOUGH THE PLAINTIFF LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY DID NOT EXIST AT THE TIME THE LEASE WAS SIGNED, DEFENDANT TOOK POSSESSION OF THE PROPERTY, UNDER THE DOCTRINE OF INCORPORATION BY ESTOPPEL, DEFENDANT CANNOT ESCAPE LIABILITY FOR BREACH OF THE LEASE (SECOND DEPT))

,

LANDLORD, BY THE TERMS OF THE LEASE WHICH REQUIRED THE TENANT TO DO RENOVATION WORK, IS DEEMED TO HAVE CONSENTED TO THE WORK, THE CONTRACTOR THEREFORE HAD A VALID MECHANIC’S LIEN WITH RESPECT TO THE LANDLORD (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Wilson, determined the landlord (COR), by the terms of the lease which required work on the premises to be done by the tenant restaurant (Peaches), consented to the work. Therefore the contractor who did the work had a valid mechanic’s lien with respect to the landlord:

The language of the lease agreement not only expressly authorized Peaches to undertake the electrical work, but also required it to do so to effectuate the purpose of the lease—that is, for Peaches to open the restaurant for business and operate it continuously, seven days a week, during hours specified by COR. Furthermore, the detailed language makes clear that COR was to retain close supervision over the work and authorized it to exercise at least some direction over the work by reviewing, commenting on, revising, and granting ultimate approval for the design drawings related to the electrical work. We therefore conclude that, under our prior precedents, the terms of the lease agreement between COR and Peaches, taken together, are sufficient to establish COR’s consent under Lien Law § 3. Ferrara v Peaches Cafe LLC, 2018 NY Slip Op 07925, CtApp 11-20-18

LIEN LAW (LANDLORD, BY THE TERMS OF THE LEASE WHICH REQUIRED THE TENANT TO DO RENOVATION WORK, IS DEEMED TO HAVE CONSENTED TO THE WORK, THE CONTRACTOR THEREFORE HAD A VALID MECHANIC’S LIEN WITH RESPECT TO THE LANDLORD (CT APP))/LANDLORD-TENANT (LIEN LAW, (LANDLORD, BY THE TERMS OF THE LEASE WHICH REQUIRED THE TENANT TO DO RENOVATION WORK, IS DEEMED TO HAVE CONSENTED TO THE WORK, THE CONTRACTOR THEREFORE HAD A VALID MECHANIC’S LIEN WITH RESPECT TO THE LANDLORD (CT APP))/MECHANIC’S LIEN (LANDLORD-TENANT, LANDLORD, BY THE TERMS OF THE LEASE WHICH REQUIRED THE TENANT TO DO RENOVATION WORK, IS DEEMED TO HAVE CONSENTED TO THE WORK, THE CONTRACTOR THEREFORE HAD A VALID MECHANIC’S LIEN WITH RESPECT TO THE LANDLORD (CT APP))

,

PROPRIETARY LEASE PROVISION ALLOWING THE LANDLORD TO RECOVER ATTORNEY’S FEES EVEN WHEN THE LANDLORD IS IN DEFAULT IS UNCONSCIONABLE AND UNENFORCEABLE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined that a provision in a lease which required the petitioner tenant to pay the respondent landlord’s attorney’s fees even where the landlord was in default was unenforceable as unconscionable. Petitioner tenant had sued the landlord for failure to transfer shares in an apartment in accordance with petitioner’s husband’s wishes:

In 2012, petitioner’s husband, who owned the shares to another apartment in the building, agreed to transfer his shares to petitioner. Petitioner paid a transfer fee to respondent so that it would transfer the shares to her. She later sued respondent for default of the lease agreement and for statutory violations because respondent had not transferred the shares to her husband’s apartment to her. Respondent answered petitioner’s complaint and asserted a counterclaim for attorneys’ fees under paragraph 6(7)(c). * * *

… [W]we find that an attorneys’ fees provision which provides that the tenant must pay attorneys’ fees if it commences an action against the landlord based upon the default of the landlord is unconscionable and unenforceable as a penalty. Paragraph 6(7)(c) of the proprietary lease permits the landlord to recover attorneys’ fees when the tenant brings an action against the landlord even when the landlord is in default. To enforce such a provision would produce an unjust result because it would dissuade aggrieved parties from pursuing litigation and preclude tenant-shareholders from making meaningful decisions about how to vindicate their rights in legitimate instances of landlord default. Matter of Krodel v Amalgamated Dwellings Inc., 2018 NY Slip Op 07531, First Dept 11-8-18

LANDLORD-TENANT (CONTRACT LAW, PROPRIETARY LEASE PROVISION ALLOWING THE LANDLORD TO RECOVER ATTORNEY’S FEES EVEN WHEN THE LANDLORD IS IN DEFAULT IS UNCONSCIONABLE AND UNENFORCEABLE (FIRST DEPT))/CONTRACT LAW (LANDLORD-TENANT, LEASE, CONTRACT LAW, PROPRIETARY LEASE PROVISION ALLOWING THE LANDLORD TO RECOVER ATTORNEY’S FEES EVEN WHEN THE LANDLORD IS IN DEFAULT IS UNCONSCIONABLE AND UNENFORCEABLE (FIRST DEPT))/LEASE (CONTRACT LAW, UNCONSIONABILITY, PROPRIETARY LEASE PROVISION ALLOWING THE LANDLORD TO RECOVER ATTORNEY’S FEES EVEN WHEN THE LANDLORD IS IN DEFAULT IS UNCONSCIONABLE AND UNENFORCEABLE (FIRST DEPT))/UNCONSIONABILITY (LANDLORD-TENANT, CONTRACT LAW, LEASE, PROPRIETARY LEASE PROVISION ALLOWING THE LANDLORD TO RECOVER ATTORNEY’S FEES EVEN WHEN THE LANDLORD IS IN DEFAULT IS UNCONSCIONABLE AND UNENFORCEABLE (FIRST DEPT))

,

OUT-OF-POSSESSION LANDLORD’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the defendant out-of-possession landlord’s motion for summary judgment in this slip and fall case was properly denied. Plaintiff slipped and fell on water which appeared to be coming from the bathroom door in the leased premises:

An out-of-possession landlord is not liable for injuries that occur on its premises unless the landlord has retained control over the premises and has a “duty imposed by statute or assumed by contract or a course of conduct” … . Here, the plaintiff alleged the violation of a duty imposed by Administrative Code of the City of New York § 28-301.1, which provides that the owner of a building “shall be responsible at all times to maintain the building and its facilities and all other structures regulated by this code in a safe and code-compliant manner” … .. The defendant failed to meet its prima facie burden of demonstrating that it completely relinquished possession and control of the basement area of the building, such that it cannot be held liable under that Administrative Code provision for injuries caused by a defective condition therein … . Nieves v Pennsylvania, LLC, 2018 NY Slip Op 07134, Second Dept 10-24-18

NEGLIGENCE (SLIP AND FALL, LANDLORD-TENANT, OUT-OF-POSSESSION LANDLORD’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT))/LANDLORD-TENANT (NEGLIGENCE, SLIP AND FALL, OUT-OF-POSSESSION LANDLORD’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT))/SLIP AND FALL (LANDLORD-TENANT, OUT-OF-POSSESSION LANDLORD’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT))/OUT OF POSSESSION LANDLORD (SLIP AND FALL, OUT-OF-POSSESSION LANDLORD’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT))

, , ,

BUILDING OWNER COULD NOT SEEK INDEMNIFICATION FROM THE LESSEE IN THIS LEAD PAINT CASE WHERE THE INJURED PARTY WAS A SUBTENANT, THE INDEMNIFICATION CLAUSE IN THE LEASE DID NOT LIMIT RECOVERY TO THE NEGLIGENCE OF THE LESSEE AND THEREFORE THE CLAUSE WAS UNENFORCEABLE UNDER THE GENERAL OBLIGATIONS LAW (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that the lessee’s motion for summary judgment in this lead paint injury case should have been granted. The injured child was in the subtenant’s family. The subtenant sued the owner of the building for failing to abate the lead paint hazard. The owner attempted to seek indemnification from the lessee. The indemnification clause in the lease, however, was not enforceable because it was not limited to the lessee’s negligence:

At the time when the alleged injury occurred, Administrative Code of the City of New York former § 27-2013(h) (Local Law 1) … placed a specific duty on the owner of a multiple dwelling to abate lead paint in leased premises where children under the specified age resided… . The owner of a cooperative corporation was considered the owner of a multiple dwelling for purposes of Local Law 1… .

Contrary to the [lessee’s] contention, the fact that Local Law 1 imposed a nondelegable duty on [the owner] to abate the lead paint hazard does not mean that [the owner] is precluded from recovering in indemnity, either contractual or common-law, from third parties whose acts or omissions are alleged to have caused or contributed to the infant plaintiff’s injuries… . However, under the circumstances presented, [the owner] may not seek contractual indemnification from the [lessee] based on the indemnification provision contained in the proprietary lease. “A broad indemnification provision in a lease . . . which is not limited to the lessee’s acts or omissions, fails to make exceptions for the lessor’s own negligence, and does not limit the lessor’s recovery under the lessee’s indemnification obligation to insurance proceeds, is unenforceable pursuant to General Obligations Law § 5-321” … . N.A. v Hillcrest Owners Assn., Inc., 2018 NY Slip Op 07133, Second Dept 10-24-18

CONTRACT LAW (BUILDING OWNER COULD NOT SEEK INDEMNIFICATION FROM THE LESSEE IN THIS LEAD PAINT CASE WHERE THE INJURED PARTY WAS A SUBTENANT, THE INDEMNIFICATION CLAUSE IN THE LEASE DID NOT LIMIT RECOVERY TO THE NEGLIGENCE OF THE LESSEE AND THEREFORE THE CLAUSE WAS UNENFORCEABLE UNDER THE GENERAL OBLIGATIONS LAW (SECOND DEPT))/LANDLORD-TENANT (BUILDING OWNER COULD NOT SEEK INDEMNIFICATION FROM THE LESSEE IN THIS LEAD PAINT CASE WHERE THE INJURED PARTY WAS A SUBTENANT, THE INDEMNIFICATION CLAUSE IN THE LEASE DID NOT LIMIT RECOVERY TO THE NEGLIGENCE OF THE LESSEE AND THEREFORE THE CLAUSE WAS UNENFORCEABLE UNDER THE GENERAL OBLIGATIONS LAW (SECOND DEPT))/NEGLIGENCE  (BUILDING OWNER COULD NOT SEEK INDEMNIFICATION FROM THE LESSEE IN THIS LEAD PAINT CASE WHERE THE INJURED PARTY WAS A SUBTENANT, THE INDEMNIFICATION CLAUSE IN THE LEASE DID NOT LIMIT RECOVERY TO THE NEGLIGENCE OF THE LESSEE AND THEREFORE THE CLAUSE WAS UNENFORCEABLE UNDER THE GENERAL OBLIGATIONS LAW (SECOND DEPT))/TOXIC TORTS (LEAD PAINT, (BUILDING OWNER COULD NOT SEEK INDEMNIFICATION FROM THE LESSEE IN THIS LEAD PAINT CASE WHERE THE INJURED PARTY WAS A SUBTENANT, THE INDEMNIFICATION CLAUSE IN THE LEASE DID NOT LIMIT RECOVERY TO THE NEGLIGENCE OF THE LESSEE AND THEREFORE THE CLAUSE WAS UNENFORCEABLE UNDER THE GENERAL OBLIGATIONS LAW (SECOND DEPT))/INDEMNIFICATION (LEASE, BUILDING OWNER COULD NOT SEEK INDEMNIFICATION FROM THE LESSEE IN THIS LEAD PAINT CASE WHERE THE INJURED PARTY WAS A SUBTENANT, THE INDEMNIFICATION CLAUSE IN THE LEASE DID NOT LIMIT RECOVERY TO THE NEGLIGENCE OF THE LESSEE AND THEREFORE THE CLAUSE WAS UNENFORCEABLE UNDER THE GENERAL OBLIGATIONS LAW (SECOND DEPT))

,

LANDLORD’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS THIRD PARTY ASSAULT CASE PROPERLY GRANTED, TENANT WAS ASSAULTED IN THE BUILDING, ASSAULT WAS NOT FORESEEABLE (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department determined the negligence action against the landlord in this third party assault case was properly dismissed. The plaintiff tenant was assaulted in the vestibule of the building. The landlord demonstrated the attack was not foreseeable because there had been no similar assaults in the past:

The plaintiff was assaulted in the vestibule of a residential building in which she lived. The vestibule was accessed through an unlocked front door. A second door leading into the building’s lobby was locked, and there was an intercom buzzer system in the vestibule that permitted residents to control access to the building. The perpetrator of the assault was inside the vestibule when the plaintiff entered the building. …

“Landlords have a common-law duty to take minimal precautions to protect tenants from foreseeable harm, including foreseeable criminal conduct by a third person”… . “To establish foreseeability, there is no requirement that the past experience of criminal activity be of the same type as that to which the plaintiff was subjected” … . However, “the criminal conduct at issue must be shown to be reasonably predictable based on the prior occurrence of the same or similar criminal activity at a location sufficiently proximate to the subject location”… .

Here, the defendant established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that it lacked notice of any prior occurrences of the same or similar criminal activity at or near the subject premises … . George v 855 Ocean Ave., LLC, 2018 NY Slip Op 07100, Second Dept 10-24-18

NEGLIGENCE (LANDLORD-TENANT, THIRD PARTY ASSAULT, LANDLORD’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS THIRD PARTY ASSAULT CASE PROPERLY GRANTED, TENANT WAS ASSAULTED IN THE BUILDING, ASSAULT WAS NOT FORESEEABLE (SECOND DEPT))/LANDLORD-TENANT (NEGLIGENCE, THIRD PARTY ASSAULT, LANDLORD’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS THIRD PARTY ASSAULT CASE PROPERLY GRANTED, TENANT WAS ASSAULTED IN THE BUILDING, ASSAULT WAS NOT FORESEEABLE (SECOND DEPT))/THIRD PARTY ASSAULT (NEGLIGENCE, LANDLORD-TENANT, LANDLORD’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS THIRD PARTY ASSAULT CASE PROPERLY GRANTED, TENANT WAS ASSAULTED IN THE BUILDING, ASSAULT WAS NOT FORESEEABLE (SECOND DEPT))/ ASSAULT, THIRD PARTY (NEGLIGENCE, LANDLORD-TENANT, LANDLORD’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS THIRD PARTY ASSAULT CASE PROPERLY GRANTED, TENANT WAS ASSAULTED IN THE BUILDING, ASSAULT WAS NOT FORESEEABLE (SECOND 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 © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy