Gomez v. New York City Housing Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Gomez v. New York City Housing Authority

249 A.D.2d 175, 672 N.Y.S.2d 676, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4440

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

DecidedApril 23, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 249 A.D.2d 175 (Gomez v. New York City Housing Authority) 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

Gomez v. New York City Housing Authority, 249 A.D.2d 175, 672 N.Y.S.2d 676, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4440 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Stanley Green, J.), entered March 26, 1997, setting aside a verdict in plaintiff tenant’s favor in an action against defendant landlord for personal injuries allegedly sustained as a result of inadequate building security, and dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Appeal from order, same court and Justice, entered on or about December 2, 1996, which granted defendant’s motion to set aside the verdict, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as superseded by the appeal from the judgment.

The trial court properly set aside the verdict on the ground that plaintiff had to prove not only that the assailant gained access to the building through the defective rear door used regularly by building residents, but also that the assailant was an intruder, that is, a person who was neither a resident nor a guest of a resident, and that plaintiff failed to meet this burden of proof (Wright v New York City Hous. Auth., 208 AD2d 327, 330-331; Melville v New York City Hous. Auth., 242 AD2d 244, 245). Plaintiffs testimony that she had never seen the assailant in this large building either before or after the attack is insufficient as a matter of law to prove that the assailant was an intruder (Burgos v Aqueduct Realty Corp., 245 AD2d 221, 223), and the fact that the assailant did not disguise himself and ran out of the building after the attack does not cure this shortcoming. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Rubin, Tom and Andrias, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Stanley Green, J.), entered March 26, 1997, setting aside a verdict in plaintiff tenant’s favor in an action against defendant landlord for personal injuries allegedly sustained as a result of inadequate building security, and dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Appeal from order, same court and Justice, entered on or about December 2, 1996, which granted defendant’s motion to set aside the verdict, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as superseded by the appeal from the judgment.

The trial court properly set aside the verdict on the ground that plaintiff had to prove not only that the assailant gained access to the building through the defective rear door used regularly by building residents, but also that the assailant was an intruder, that is, a person who was neither a resident nor a guest of a resident, and that plaintiff failed to meet this burden of proof (Wright v New York City Hous. Auth., 208 AD2d 327, 330-331; Melville v New York City Hous. Auth., 242 AD2d 244, 245). Plaintiffs testimony that she had never seen the assailant in this large building either before or after the attack is insufficient as a matter of law to prove that the assailant was an intruder (Burgos v Aqueduct Realty Corp., 245 AD2d 221, 223), and the fact that the assailant did not disguise himself and ran out of the building after the attack does not cure this shortcoming. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Rubin, Tom and Andrias, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

249 A.D.2d 175, 672 N.Y.S.2d 676, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4440, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gomez-v-new-york-city-housing-authority-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack