Cardena v. Alexander Wolfe & Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Cardena v. Alexander Wolfe & Co.

303 A.D.2d 313, 758 N.Y.S.2d 15, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3263

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

DecidedMarch 27, 2003

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 303 A.D.2d 313 (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., 303 A.D.2d 313, 758 N.Y.S.2d 15, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3263 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Paul Victor, J.), entered October 1, 2001, which denied defendant’s posttrial motion to set aside the verdict, unanimously modified, on the law, to the extent of directing a new trial on the issue of apportionment of damages, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

Chianese v Meier (98 NY2d 270 [2002]), decided after the order on appeal, clarifies that a landlord whose negligence precipitates or facilitates an act of violence can seek apportionment of noneconomic damages with a nonparty intentional tortfeasor. Accordingly, we remand for further proceedings on apportionment. In all other respects, we affirm the order. The record contains ample evidence of lack of building security in the form of broken front door locks, defendants’ actual notice thereof, and the foreseeability of a violent assault in the building (see Burgos v Aqueduct Realty Corp., 92 NY2d 544 [1998]). Concerning the latter, “[t]here is no requirement * * * that [314]*314the past experience relied on to establish foreseeability be of criminal activity at the exact location where plaintiff was harmed or that it be of the same type of criminal conduct to which plaintiff was subjected.” (Jacqueline S. v City of New York, 81 NY2d 288, 294 [1993].) We have considered defendant’s other arguments and find them unavailing. Concur — Buckley, P.J., Mazzarelli, Andrias, Saxe and Friedman, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Paul Victor, J.), entered October 1, 2001, which denied defendant’s posttrial motion to set aside the verdict, unanimously modified, on the law, to the extent of directing a new trial on the issue of apportionment of damages, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

Chianese v Meier (98 NY2d 270 [2002]), decided after the order on appeal, clarifies that a landlord whose negligence precipitates or facilitates an act of violence can seek apportionment of noneconomic damages with a nonparty intentional tortfeasor. Accordingly, we remand for further proceedings on apportionment. In all other respects, we affirm the order. The record contains ample evidence of lack of building security in the form of broken front door locks, defendants’ actual notice thereof, and the foreseeability of a violent assault in the building (see Burgos v Aqueduct Realty Corp., 92 NY2d 544 [1998]). Concerning the latter, “[t]here is no requirement * * * that [314]*314the past experience relied on to establish foreseeability be of criminal activity at the exact location where plaintiff was harmed or that it be of the same type of criminal conduct to which plaintiff was subjected.” (Jacqueline S. v City of New York, 81 NY2d 288, 294 [1993].) We have considered defendant’s other arguments and find them unavailing. Concur — Buckley, P.J., Mazzarelli, Andrias, Saxe and Friedman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

303 A.D.2d 313, 758 N.Y.S.2d 15, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3263, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cardena-v-alexander-wolfe-co-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack