Cerda v. 2962 Decatur Avenue Owners Corp.

306 A.D.2d 169, 761 N.Y.S.2d 220, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7302
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJune 24, 2003
StatusPublished
Cited by13 cases

This text of 306 A.D.2d 169 (Cerda v. 2962 Decatur Avenue Owners 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
Cerda v. 2962 Decatur Avenue Owners Corp., 306 A.D.2d 169, 761 N.Y.S.2d 220, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7302 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Douglas McKeon, J.), entered November 14, 2001, which granted defendants’ summary judgment motion dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The motion court properly granted defendant landlords summary judgment in this personal injury case. As in Rivera v New York City Hous. Auth. (239 AD2d 114 [1997]), the alleged proximate cause of the tenant’s injuries, the landlord’s negligence in failing to repair a broken front door lock thereby allowing the intruder-perpetrator’s entry, is seriously undermined by strong evidence of the unforeseeable existence of a preconceived criminal conspiracy to murder the tenant, such that “it [is] most unlikely that any reasonable security measures would have deterred the criminal participants” (id. at 115, citing Tarter v Schildkraut, 151 AD2d 414 [1989], lv [170]*170denied 74 NY2d 616 [1989]). Here, the record shows that the tenant, an ex-drug dealer, was assaulted by a team of assassins which was waiting for him in the hallway outside his apartment at the exact time, in the early morning, that he arrived home from work, which team included at least a third member outside the building who coordinated with the attackers by walkie-talkie, and who made statements indicating that they were specifically targeting the tenant.

Plaintiffs reliance on Burgos v Aqueduct Realty Corp. (92 NY2d 544 [1998]) is inapposite inasmuch as that case had no evidence of a criminal conspiracy to harm the injured party, not to mention one as carefully planned and executed as the one at bar. Concur — Buckley, P.J., Tom, Andrias, Williams and Friedman, JJ.

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

Related

Gonzalez v. Georgetown Plaza
2022 NY Slip Op 06551 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2022)
Estate of Murphy v. New York City Hous. Auth.
2021 NY Slip Op 02246 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2021)
Scurry v. New York City Hous. Auth.
2021 NY Slip Op 00447 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2021)
Roldan v. New York City Hous. Auth.
2019 NY Slip Op 2462 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2019)
Estate of Faughey Ex Rel. Adam v. New 56-79 IG Associates, L.P.
2017 NY Slip Op 2608 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)
Flynn v. Esplanade Gardens, Inc.
76 A.D.2d 490 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
Nash v. Port Authority
51 A.D.3d 337 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
Cynthia B. v. 3156 Hull Ave. Equities, Inc.
38 A.D.3d 360 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)
Lopez v. Barrett T.B. Inc.
38 A.D.3d 1308 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)
Flores v. Dearborne Management, Inc.
24 A.D.3d 101 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)
Buckeridge v. Broadie
5 A.D.3d 298 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
306 A.D.2d 169, 761 N.Y.S.2d 220, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7302, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cerda-v-2962-decatur-avenue-owners-corp-nyappdiv-2003.