Fischer v. River Place I LLC

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Fischer v. River Place I LLC

118 A.D.3d 473, 987 N.Y.S.2d 608

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

DecidedJune 10, 2014

StatusPublished

This text of 118 A.D.3d 473 (Fischer v. River Place I LLC) 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

Fischer v. River Place I LLC, 118 A.D.3d 473, 987 N.Y.S.2d 608 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Barbara Jaffe, J.), entered April 19, 2013, which granted the motion of defendants River Place I LLC and Silverstein Properties, Inc. (defendants) for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against them, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Following defendants’ showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the assault upon her by a person she had previously invited into her apartment was foreseeable (see Flynn v Esplanade Gardens, Inc., 76 AD3d 490, 492 [1st Dept 2010]). The record shows that plaintiffs electronic access key had been stolen by her assailant on the day he had visited her apartment, and although plaintiff was aware that the key had been missing for approximately one week, she never reported it to building management or requested that the key be deactivated.

We have considered plaintiffs remaining contentions and find them unavailing.

Concur — Gonzalez, PJ., Sweeny, Moskowitz, Freedman and Kapnick, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Barbara Jaffe, J.), entered April 19, 2013, which granted the motion of defendants River Place I LLC and Silverstein Properties, Inc. (defendants) for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against them, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Following defendants’ showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the assault upon her by a person she had previously invited into her apartment was foreseeable (see Flynn v Esplanade Gardens, Inc., 76 AD3d 490, 492 [1st Dept 2010]). The record shows that plaintiffs electronic access key had been stolen by her assailant on the day he had visited her apartment, and although plaintiff was aware that the key had been missing for approximately one week, she never reported it to building management or requested that the key be deactivated.

We have considered plaintiffs remaining contentions and find them unavailing.

Concur — Gonzalez, PJ., Sweeny, Moskowitz, Freedman and Kapnick, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

118 A.D.3d 473, 987 N.Y.S.2d 608, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fischer-v-river-place-i-llc-nyappdiv-2014.