Gonzalez v. New 40 Rector Street Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Gonzalez v. New 40 Rector Street Co.

250 A.D.2d 376, 672 N.Y.S.2d 687, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5270

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided May 5, 1998·Published

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Stuart Cohen, J.), entered February 21, 1997, which, in an action by an employee of a building tenant against the building’s owner and managing agent for failure to provide adequate building security, granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment, and denied plaintiff’s cross motion for a protective order, or, in the alternative, additional disclosure, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The motion was properly granted for failure to adduce evidence, raising a genuine issue of fact, that defendants had rea[377] son to know from past experience that there was a likelihood of criminal conduct that would endanger the safety of tenants of the premises (see, Rivera v Lazo, 230 AD2d 662, 663). In the present circumstances, plaintiffs purported need for additional discovery did not warrant denial of the motion pursuant to CPLR 3212 (f). In view of the foregoing, that part of the cross motion seeking a protective order was properly denied as moot. Concur — Milonas, J. P., Williams, Tom, Andrias and Saxe, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Stuart Cohen, J.), entered February 21, 1997, which, in an action by an employee of a building tenant against the building’s owner and managing agent for failure to provide adequate building security, granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment, and denied plaintiff’s cross motion for a protective order, or, in the alternative, additional disclosure, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The motion was properly granted for failure to adduce evidence, raising a genuine issue of fact, that defendants had rea[377] son to know from past experience that there was a likelihood of criminal conduct that would endanger the safety of tenants of the premises (see, Rivera v Lazo, 230 AD2d 662, 663). In the present circumstances, plaintiffs purported need for additional discovery did not warrant denial of the motion pursuant to CPLR 3212 (f). In view of the foregoing, that part of the cross motion seeking a protective order was properly denied as moot. Concur — Milonas, J. P., Williams, Tom, Andrias and Saxe, JJ.

Gonzalez v. New 40 Rector Street Co., 250 A.D.2d 376, 672 N.Y.S.2d 687, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5270 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

250 A.D.2d 376 (Gonzalez v. New 40 Rector Street Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related