Bennett v. Twin Parks Northeast Houses, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Bennett v. Twin Parks Northeast Houses, Inc.

247 A.D.2d 213, 668 N.Y.S.2d 201, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 766

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

DecidedFebruary 3, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 247 A.D.2d 213 (Bennett v. Twin Parks Northeast Houses, Inc.) 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

Bennett v. Twin Parks Northeast Houses, Inc., 247 A.D.2d 213, 668 N.Y.S.2d 201, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 766 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Barry Salman, J.), entered May 7, 1997, which, in an action by plaintiff tenant against defendants landlord, managing agent, security company and receiver to recover for personal injuries sustained as a result of a crime committed in defendants’ building, insofar as appealed from as limited by plaintiffs brief, granted defendants’ motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

We agree with the IAS Court that plaintiffs inference that the assailant must have entered the lobby through the unlocked front door rather than either the interior stairwell or the elevator, because she neither heard the interior door nor saw the light from the elevator, is too speculative to satisfy her burden of coming forward with evidence tending to show that the assailant was an intruder and not a building resident or invitee, even when considered in conjunction with plaintiffs sworn statements that she had never previously seen the partially masked assailant (see, Burgos v Aqueduct Realty Corp., 245 AD2d 221; Tolliver v New York City Hous. Auth., 238 AD2d 187; Borrero v New York City Hous. Auth., 236 AD2d 262). We have considered plaintiff’s other arguments and find them to be without merit.

Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Wallach, Williams and Andrias, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Barry Salman, J.), entered May 7, 1997, which, in an action by plaintiff tenant against defendants landlord, managing agent, security company and receiver to recover for personal injuries sustained as a result of a crime committed in defendants’ building, insofar as appealed from as limited by plaintiffs brief, granted defendants’ motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

We agree with the IAS Court that plaintiffs inference that the assailant must have entered the lobby through the unlocked front door rather than either the interior stairwell or the elevator, because she neither heard the interior door nor saw the light from the elevator, is too speculative to satisfy her burden of coming forward with evidence tending to show that the assailant was an intruder and not a building resident or invitee, even when considered in conjunction with plaintiffs sworn statements that she had never previously seen the partially masked assailant (see, Burgos v Aqueduct Realty Corp., 245 AD2d 221; Tolliver v New York City Hous. Auth., 238 AD2d 187; Borrero v New York City Hous. Auth., 236 AD2d 262). We have considered plaintiff’s other arguments and find them to be without merit.

Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Wallach, Williams and Andrias, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

247 A.D.2d 213, 668 N.Y.S.2d 201, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 766, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bennett-v-twin-parks-northeast-houses-inc-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack