Bonano v. XYZ Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Bonano v. XYZ Corp.

261 A.D.2d 280, 690 N.Y.S.2d 270, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5516

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided May 20, 1999·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Paula Omansky, J.), entered September 18, 1998, which, in an action by a tenant against her landlord and another tenant for personal injuries allegedly caused by inadequate building security against the assaultive tendencies of the other tenant, granted the landlord’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against it, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The action was properly dismissed as against the landlord. Evidence tending to show the landlord’s awareness of possible harassment of plaintiff by the other tenant did not tend to [281] show its awareness of the other tenant’s alleged violent propensities and there was otherwise no showing that the assault was foreseeable (see, Firpi v New York City Hous. Auth., 175 AD2d 858, 859, lv denied 78 NY2d 864; Gill v New York City Hous. Auth., 130 AD2d 256, 260; cf., Burgos v Aqueduct Realty Corp., 92 NY2d 544, 550-551). Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Williams, Rubin, Andidas and Friedman, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Paula Omansky, J.), entered September 18, 1998, which, in an action by a tenant against her landlord and another tenant for personal injuries allegedly caused by inadequate building security against the assaultive tendencies of the other tenant, granted the landlord’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against it, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The action was properly dismissed as against the landlord. Evidence tending to show the landlord’s awareness of possible harassment of plaintiff by the other tenant did not tend to [281] show its awareness of the other tenant’s alleged violent propensities and there was otherwise no showing that the assault was foreseeable (see, Firpi v New York City Hous. Auth., 175 AD2d 858, 859, lv denied 78 NY2d 864; Gill v New York City Hous. Auth., 130 AD2d 256, 260; cf., Burgos v Aqueduct Realty Corp., 92 NY2d 544, 550-551). Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Williams, Rubin, Andidas and Friedman, JJ.

Bonano v. XYZ Corp., 261 A.D.2d 280, 690 N.Y.S.2d 270, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5516 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

261 A.D.2d 280 (Bonano v. XYZ Corp.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related