Davila v. 1750 Realty Associates

268 A.D.2d 553, 702 N.Y.S.2d 559, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 934
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJanuary 31, 2000
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 268 A.D.2d 553 (Davila v. 1750 Realty Associates) 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
Davila v. 1750 Realty Associates, 268 A.D.2d 553, 702 N.Y.S.2d 559, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 934 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Opinion

—In an action, inter alla, to recover damages for wrongful death, the defendants 1750 Realty Associates, Allen Gross, Ralph Herzka, and Shimon Eckstein appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Barasch, J.), dated November 5, 1998, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed insofar as asserted against the appellants, and the action against the remaining defendant is severed.

To recover damages from an owner of real property for injuries caused by criminals acts on the premises, a plaintiff must produce evidence indicating that the owner knew or should have known of the probability of criminal conduct by third persons that was likely to endanger the safety of those lawfully on the premises (see, Jacqueline S. v City of New York, 81 NY2d 288, 294-295; Nallan v Helmsley-Spear, Inc., 50 NY2d 507, 519-520). Here, the plaintiff failed to raise an issue of fact as to whether the appellants breached their duty to provide minimal precautions against foreseeable criminal acts of third parties (see, Novikova v Greenbriar Owners Corp., 258 AD2d 149). The Supreme Court therefore improperly denied the appellants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the com[554]*554plaint (see, Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562). Mangano, P. J., Ritter, Joy, McGinity and Smith, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Farrell v. Vega
303 A.D.2d 716 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2003)
Mazurenko v. Beach Haven Apts. 6, Inc.
281 A.D.2d 522 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
268 A.D.2d 553, 702 N.Y.S.2d 559, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 934, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/davila-v-1750-realty-associates-nyappdiv-2000.