Harris v. New York City Housing Authority

194 A.D.2d 714, 600 N.Y.S.2d 102, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6458
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJune 21, 1993
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 194 A.D.2d 714 (Harris 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
Harris v. New York City Housing Authority, 194 A.D.2d 714, 600 N.Y.S.2d 102, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6458 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Ramirez, J.), dated April 19, 1991, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff was alone in a seventh floor apartment when he heard gunfire outside the apartment building and then in the hallway beyond the locked apartment door. The plaintiff exited the apartment through a rear window, climbing down the drainpipe until it ended at approximately the third floor. He then jumped to the ground. In the ensuing action, the plaintiff sought to impose liability based upon the defendant’s alleged negligence in failing to maintain locks on the front doors of the apartment building.

The Supreme Court granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment. We affirm. The plaintiff failed to submit evidence that the defendant had notice of prior criminal incidents or similar occurrences in the building, so as to give rise to a corresponding duty on the defendant’s part to adopt security measures (see, Nallan v Helmsley-Spear, Inc., 50 NY2d 507; cf., Jacqueline S. v City of New York, 81 NY2d 288). In any event, even if the plaintiff could establish a duty on the part of the defendant, the failure to provide a lock on the front door was not the proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injuries, since the plaintiff’s leap from the drainpipe was an intervening act which could not have been foreseen (see, Rivera v City of New York, 11 NY2d 856). Sullivan, J. P., Miller, O’Brien and Ritter, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Royal v. New York City Housing Authority
127 A.D.3d 534 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)
Green v. Grand Baldwin Associates
247 A.D.2d 511 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1998)
Canela v. Wavecrest Management Team
241 A.D.2d 506 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1997)
Mkrtchyan v. 61st Woodside Associates
209 A.D.2d 490 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1994)
Babcock v. City of New Rochelle
208 A.D.2d 879 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1994)
Grignoli v. New York City Housing Authority
196 A.D.2d 525 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1993)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
194 A.D.2d 714, 600 N.Y.S.2d 102, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6458, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/harris-v-new-york-city-housing-authority-nyappdiv-1993.