Cardena v. Alexander Wolfe & Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Cardena v. Alexander Wolfe & Co.

272 A.D.2d 67, 707 N.Y.S.2d 316, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4903

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

DecidedMay 2, 2000

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 272 A.D.2d 67 (Cardena v. Alexander Wolfe & Co.) 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

Cardena v. Alexander Wolfe & Co., 272 A.D.2d 67, 707 N.Y.S.2d 316, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4903 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Barry Salman, J.), entered on or about November 12, 1999, which denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

In this action to recover damages for negligence in connection with a criminal attack upon plaintiffs in a building owned and managed by defendants, the motion court correctly determined that defendant failed to meet their burden and sufficient evidence was presented to establish a factual question as to the foreseeability of criminal conduct in the building and as to the existence of a causal link between the lack of building security, notably an unsecured front door, and the attack on plaintiffs (see, Burgos v Aqueduct Realty Corp., 92 NY2d 544, 548; Carmen P. v PS&S Realty Corp., 259 AD2d 386, 387). Concur — Mazzarelli, J. P., Ellerin, Lerner, Andrias and Friedman, 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 on or about November 12, 1999, which denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

In this action to recover damages for negligence in connection with a criminal attack upon plaintiffs in a building owned and managed by defendants, the motion court correctly determined that defendant failed to meet their burden and sufficient evidence was presented to establish a factual question as to the foreseeability of criminal conduct in the building and as to the existence of a causal link between the lack of building security, notably an unsecured front door, and the attack on plaintiffs (see, Burgos v Aqueduct Realty Corp., 92 NY2d 544, 548; Carmen P. v PS&S Realty Corp., 259 AD2d 386, 387). Concur — Mazzarelli, J. P., Ellerin, Lerner, Andrias and Friedman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

272 A.D.2d 67, 707 N.Y.S.2d 316, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4903, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cardena-v-alexander-wolfe-co-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack