Bloch v. Hilton Hotels Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Bloch v. Hilton Hotels Corp.

288 A.D.2d 44, 732 N.Y.S.2d 401, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10384

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

DecidedNovember 8, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 288 A.D.2d 44 (Bloch v. Hilton Hotels 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

Bloch v. Hilton Hotels Corp., 288 A.D.2d 44, 732 N.Y.S.2d 401, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10384 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Sheila Abdus-Salaam, J.), entered March 27, 2001, which denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Summary judgment was properly denied in view of issues of fact raised by plaintiff as to whether the key card door lock to her hotel room accepted the alleged intruder’s key and, accordingly, as to whether a breach of security at defendant’s hotel was the proximate cause of her harm (see, McKinnon v Bell Sec., 268 AD2d 220, 221). Contrary to defendant’s argument, it [45]*45cannot be said, as a matter of law, that plaintiffs failure to double lock and chain her door constituted an intervening and superseding act severing the causal nexus between any negligence on defendant’s part and plaintiffs injury (see, Mason v U.E.S.S. Leasing Corp., 274 AD2d 79, 82, affd 96 NY2d 875). Concur — Williams, J. P., Andrias, Wallach, Lerner and Saxe, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Sheila Abdus-Salaam, J.), entered March 27, 2001, which denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Summary judgment was properly denied in view of issues of fact raised by plaintiff as to whether the key card door lock to her hotel room accepted the alleged intruder’s key and, accordingly, as to whether a breach of security at defendant’s hotel was the proximate cause of her harm (see, McKinnon v Bell Sec., 268 AD2d 220, 221). Contrary to defendant’s argument, it [45]*45cannot be said, as a matter of law, that plaintiffs failure to double lock and chain her door constituted an intervening and superseding act severing the causal nexus between any negligence on defendant’s part and plaintiffs injury (see, Mason v U.E.S.S. Leasing Corp., 274 AD2d 79, 82, affd 96 NY2d 875). Concur — Williams, J. P., Andrias, Wallach, Lerner and Saxe, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

288 A.D.2d 44, 732 N.Y.S.2d 401, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10384, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bloch-v-hilton-hotels-corp-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack