Britt v. New York City Housing Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Britt v. New York City Housing Authority

3 A.D.3d 514, 770 N.Y.S.2d 744

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

DecidedJanuary 20, 2004

StatusPublished

Cited by10 cases

This text of 3 A.D.3d 514 (Britt v. New York City Housing Authority) 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

Britt v. New York City Housing Authority, 3 A.D.3d 514, 770 N.Y.S.2d 744 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Bernstein, J.), dated November 22, 2002, which granted the motion of the defendant New York City Housing Authority for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

A landlord has no duty to prevent one tenant from attacking another tenant unless it has the authority, ability, and opportunity to control the actions of the assailant (see Adelstein v Waterview Towers, 250 AD2d 790, 791 [1998]; Siino v Reices, 216 AD2d 552, 553 [1995]; Johnson v Slocum Realty Corp., 191 AD2d 613, 614-615 [1993]; Blatt v New York City Hous. Auth., 123 AD2d 591, 592 [1986]). Here, the landlord’s power to evict the assailant did not furnish it “with a reasonable opportunity or effective means to prevent or remedy [the assailant’s] unacceptable conduct, since the incident giving rise to the injuries sustained, and indeed, the pattern of harassment alleged by the plaintiff, arose from a purely personal dispute between the two individuals” (Blatt v New York City Hous. Auth., supra at 593 [citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted]; see also [515]*515Firpi v New York City Hous. Auth., 175 AD2d 858, 859 [1991]). Moreover, under the circumstances presented, the assault upon the injured plaintiff was not foreseeable (see Firpi v New York City Hous. Auth., supra at 859; see also Adelstein v Waterview Towers, supra at 791; Hughes v City of New York, 238 AD2d 477 [1997]; Perry v Northwestern Realty Co., 236 AD2d 378 [1997]). Accordingly, the landlord’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it was properly granted.

The plaintiffs’ remaining contentions are without merit. Santucci, J.P., Krausman, Schmidt and Rivera, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Bernstein, J.), dated November 22, 2002, which granted the motion of the defendant New York City Housing Authority for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

A landlord has no duty to prevent one tenant from attacking another tenant unless it has the authority, ability, and opportunity to control the actions of the assailant (see Adelstein v Waterview Towers, 250 AD2d 790, 791 [1998]; Siino v Reices, 216 AD2d 552, 553 [1995]; Johnson v Slocum Realty Corp., 191 AD2d 613, 614-615 [1993]; Blatt v New York City Hous. Auth., 123 AD2d 591, 592 [1986]). Here, the landlord’s power to evict the assailant did not furnish it “with a reasonable opportunity or effective means to prevent or remedy [the assailant’s] unacceptable conduct, since the incident giving rise to the injuries sustained, and indeed, the pattern of harassment alleged by the plaintiff, arose from a purely personal dispute between the two individuals” (Blatt v New York City Hous. Auth., supra at 593 [citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted]; see also [515]*515Firpi v New York City Hous. Auth., 175 AD2d 858, 859 [1991]). Moreover, under the circumstances presented, the assault upon the injured plaintiff was not foreseeable (see Firpi v New York City Hous. Auth., supra at 859; see also Adelstein v Waterview Towers, supra at 791; Hughes v City of New York, 238 AD2d 477 [1997]; Perry v Northwestern Realty Co., 236 AD2d 378 [1997]). Accordingly, the landlord’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it was properly granted.

The plaintiffs’ remaining contentions are without merit. Santucci, J.P., Krausman, Schmidt and Rivera, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

3 A.D.3d 514, 770 N.Y.S.2d 744, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/britt-v-new-york-city-housing-authority-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack