Alebrande v. New York City Housing Authority

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Alebrande v. New York City Housing Authority

49 Misc. 2d 880, 268 N.Y.S.2d 579, 1966 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2089

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedMarch 17, 1966

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 49 Misc. 2d 880 (Alebrande v. New York City Housing Authority) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Alebrande v. New York City Housing Authority, 49 Misc. 2d 880, 268 N.Y.S.2d 579, 1966 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2089 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The evidence presented does not establish that the tenants ’ loss, resulting from an act of vandalism, could have been reasonably anticipated so as to impose a duty upon the landlord to increase existing security measures.

Judgment reversed, with $30 costs, and judgment directed for the defendant, with costs.

Hofstadter, J. P.

I cannot agree that as matter of law plaintiffs failed to establish negligence on the part of defendant. If defendant failed to provide adequate safeguards against vandalism — an issue of fact (Beauchamp v. New York City Housing Auth., 12 N Y 2d 400, 407-408) —it is liable even if the exact manner in which its negligence would result in injury could not be foreseen. It is enough if it was foreseeable that some injury would result (Williams v. State of New York, 308 N. Y. 548, 556, citing Lowery v. Manhattan Ry. Co., 99 N. Y. 158,162-163). The court below found inadequate safeguards.

Liability is not defeated by the intervening act, since defendant’s acts “ gave rise to the stream of events that culminated in the ” damage to plaintiffs’ property (Matter of Guardian Cas. Co., 253 App. Div. 360, 362-363, affd. 278 N. Y. 674; Farr v. Wright, 273 N. Y. 560; Di Sabato v. Soffes, 9 A D 2d 297, 304-305; De Sessa v. City of White Plains, 30 Misc 2d 817, 822; Latoni v. City of New York, 11 Misc 2d 363, 366).

We should not overturn the carefully considered conclusions, warranted by the evidence of the trial court, on these questions of fact. I therefore dissent and vote to affirm.

Hecht and Gold, JJ., concur; Hofstadter, J. P., dissents and votes to affirm in dissenting memorandum.

Judgment reversed, etc.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Curiam.

The evidence presented does not establish that the tenants ’ loss, resulting from an act of vandalism, could have been reasonably anticipated so as to impose a duty upon the landlord to increase existing security measures.

Judgment reversed, with $30 costs, and judgment directed for the defendant, with costs.

Hofstadter, J. P.

I cannot agree that as matter of law plaintiffs failed to establish negligence on the part of defendant. If defendant failed to provide adequate safeguards against vandalism — an issue of fact (Beauchamp v. New York City Housing Auth., 12 N Y 2d 400, 407-408) —it is liable even if the exact manner in which its negligence would result in injury could not be foreseen. It is enough if it was foreseeable that some injury would result (Williams v. State of New York, 308 N. Y. 548, 556, citing Lowery v. Manhattan Ry. Co., 99 N. Y. 158,162-163). The court below found inadequate safeguards.

Liability is not defeated by the intervening act, since defendant’s acts “ gave rise to the stream of events that culminated in the ” damage to plaintiffs’ property (Matter of Guardian Cas. Co., 253 App. Div. 360, 362-363, affd. 278 N. Y. 674; Farr v. Wright, 273 N. Y. 560; Di Sabato v. Soffes, 9 A D 2d 297, 304-305; De Sessa v. City of White Plains, 30 Misc 2d 817, 822; Latoni v. City of New York, 11 Misc 2d 363, 366).

We should not overturn the carefully considered conclusions, warranted by the evidence of the trial court, on these questions of fact. I therefore dissent and vote to affirm.

Hecht and Gold, JJ., concur; Hofstadter, J. P., dissents and votes to affirm in dissenting memorandum.

Judgment reversed, etc.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

49 Misc. 2d 880, 268 N.Y.S.2d 579, 1966 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2089, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/alebrande-v-new-york-city-housing-authority-nyappterm-1966.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack