Hughes v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Hughes v. City of New York

238 A.D.2d 477, 656 N.Y.S.2d 649, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4021

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

DecidedApril 21, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 238 A.D.2d 477 (Hughes v. City of New York) 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

Hughes v. City of New York, 238 A.D.2d 477, 656 N.Y.S.2d 649, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4021 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

—In .an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Lerner, J.), dated March 1, 1996, which granted the defendants’ separate motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Where the basis of liability in a case such as this is a claim that the landlord failed to protect one tenant from the aggression of another tenant, it must first be established that the landlord had the ability and a reasonable opportunity to control the aggressor. Additionally, it must be established that the harm complained of was foreseeable (see, Firpi v New York City Hous. Auth., 175 AD2d 858; Gill v New York City Hous. Auth., 130 AD2d 256). As the plaintiffs failed to make either showing, the Supreme Court properly awarded summary judgment to the defendants. Miller, J. P., Thompson, Joy and Luciano, JJ., concur.

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

—In .an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Lerner, J.), dated March 1, 1996, which granted the defendants’ separate motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Where the basis of liability in a case such as this is a claim that the landlord failed to protect one tenant from the aggression of another tenant, it must first be established that the landlord had the ability and a reasonable opportunity to control the aggressor. Additionally, it must be established that the harm complained of was foreseeable (see, Firpi v New York City Hous. Auth., 175 AD2d 858; Gill v New York City Hous. Auth., 130 AD2d 256). As the plaintiffs failed to make either showing, the Supreme Court properly awarded summary judgment to the defendants. Miller, J. P., Thompson, Joy and Luciano, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

238 A.D.2d 477, 656 N.Y.S.2d 649, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4021, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hughes-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack