Ivery v. Oceanview II Associates

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ivery v. Oceanview II Associates

8 A.D.3d 440, 778 N.Y.S.2d 533, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8473

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

DecidedJune 14, 2004

StatusPublished

This text of 8 A.D.3d 440 (Ivery v. Oceanview II Associates) 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

Ivery v. Oceanview II Associates, 8 A.D.3d 440, 778 N.Y.S.2d 533, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8473 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Dollard, J.), dated July 29, 2003, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The defendant, Oceanview II Associates (hereinafter Ocean-view), as landlord of the subject building, had a duty to take minimal security precautions against reasonably foreseeable criminal acts by third parties (see James v Jamie Towers Hous. Co., 99 NY2d 639, 641 [2003]). There are issues of fact, inter alia, as to whether the presence of Chester Jones on the premises was a foreseeable risk which Oceanview was obligated to take precautions against (see Mason v U.E.S.S. Leasing Corp., 96 NY2d 875, 877 [2001]). In view of the foregoing, Oceanview failed to establish its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. Krausman, J.P., Goldstein, Luciano and Fisher, 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 defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Dollard, J.), dated July 29, 2003, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The defendant, Oceanview II Associates (hereinafter Ocean-view), as landlord of the subject building, had a duty to take minimal security precautions against reasonably foreseeable criminal acts by third parties (see James v Jamie Towers Hous. Co., 99 NY2d 639, 641 [2003]). There are issues of fact, inter alia, as to whether the presence of Chester Jones on the premises was a foreseeable risk which Oceanview was obligated to take precautions against (see Mason v U.E.S.S. Leasing Corp., 96 NY2d 875, 877 [2001]). In view of the foregoing, Oceanview failed to establish its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. Krausman, J.P., Goldstein, Luciano and Fisher, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

8 A.D.3d 440, 778 N.Y.S.2d 533, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8473, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ivery-v-oceanview-ii-associates-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack