Felix v. Kraus Management, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Felix v. Kraus Management, Inc.

35 A.D.3d 273, 827 N.Y.S.2d 121

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

DecidedDecember 19, 2006

StatusPublished

This text of 35 A.D.3d 273 (Felix v. Kraus Management, Inc.) 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

Felix v. Kraus Management, Inc., 35 A.D.3d 273, 827 N.Y.S.2d 121 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Douglas E. McKeon, J.), entered February 24, 2006, which denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, defendant’s motion granted and the complaint dismissed. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly.

Although there may be a reasonable dispute as to whether the building’s entrance lock was working properly on the day in question, the videotape evidence of the incident clearly shows that when plaintiff entered the building he was followed closely by his assailants. Contrary to plaintiffs suggestion, there was no opportunity for him to have closed the door behind him before the assailants had entered. Thus, absent any proof that defendant’s alleged negligence in failing to provide functioning door locks was the proximate cause of plaintiff’s injuries, defendant’s motion should have been granted. Concur—Tom, J.P, Mazzarelli, Andrias, Sweeny and Malone, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Douglas E. McKeon, J.), entered February 24, 2006, which denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, defendant’s motion granted and the complaint dismissed. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly.

Although there may be a reasonable dispute as to whether the building’s entrance lock was working properly on the day in question, the videotape evidence of the incident clearly shows that when plaintiff entered the building he was followed closely by his assailants. Contrary to plaintiffs suggestion, there was no opportunity for him to have closed the door behind him before the assailants had entered. Thus, absent any proof that defendant’s alleged negligence in failing to provide functioning door locks was the proximate cause of plaintiff’s injuries, defendant’s motion should have been granted. Concur—Tom, J.P, Mazzarelli, Andrias, Sweeny and Malone, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

35 A.D.3d 273, 827 N.Y.S.2d 121, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/felix-v-kraus-management-inc-nyappdiv-2006.