Alrobaia v. Park Lane Mosholu Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Alrobaia v. Park Lane Mosholu Corp.

74 A.D.3d 403, 902 N.Y.S.2d 63

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedJune 1, 2010

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 74 A.D.3d 403 (Alrobaia v. Park Lane Mosholu Corp.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Alrobaia v. Park Lane Mosholu Corp., 74 A.D.3d 403, 902 N.Y.S.2d 63 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Cynthia S. Kern, J.), entered August 19, 2009, which, in an action for personal [404]*404injuries sustained in a crime allegedly caused by inadequate building security, granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the motion denied, and the complaint reinstated.

The motion court found that defendants were entitled to summary judgment because, as the infant plaintiff testified, the doors to the building were propped open when she arrived at the building. The court concluded that since plaintiffs could not produce any evidence as to when the doors had been propped open, or when the assailant entered the building, it was just as likely that the assailant entered the building through the open doors as it was that he gained entrance because the locks were broken, and, thus, plaintiffs could not establish a causal connection between the broken locks and the attack. The argument on which the court relied, however, was raised for the first time in defendants’ reply papers, and should not have been considered by the court in formulating its decision (see Serradilla v Lords Corp., 50 AD3d 345, 346 [2008]).

Thus, summary judgment was improperly granted. Concur— Gonzalez, P.J., Saxe, Nardelli, McGuire and Moskowitz, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Cynthia S. Kern, J.), entered August 19, 2009, which, in an action for personal [404]*404injuries sustained in a crime allegedly caused by inadequate building security, granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the motion denied, and the complaint reinstated.

The motion court found that defendants were entitled to summary judgment because, as the infant plaintiff testified, the doors to the building were propped open when she arrived at the building. The court concluded that since plaintiffs could not produce any evidence as to when the doors had been propped open, or when the assailant entered the building, it was just as likely that the assailant entered the building through the open doors as it was that he gained entrance because the locks were broken, and, thus, plaintiffs could not establish a causal connection between the broken locks and the attack. The argument on which the court relied, however, was raised for the first time in defendants’ reply papers, and should not have been considered by the court in formulating its decision (see Serradilla v Lords Corp., 50 AD3d 345, 346 [2008]).

Thus, summary judgment was improperly granted. Concur— Gonzalez, P.J., Saxe, Nardelli, McGuire and Moskowitz, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

74 A.D.3d 403, 902 N.Y.S.2d 63, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/alrobaia-v-park-lane-mosholu-corp-nyappdiv-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack