Maldonado v. 69-70 Associates

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Maldonado v. 69-70 Associates

225 A.D.2d 1107, 639 N.Y.2d 199, 639 N.Y.S.2d 199, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2822

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

DecidedMarch 8, 1996

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 225 A.D.2d 1107 (Maldonado v. 69-70 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

Maldonado v. 69-70 Associates, 225 A.D.2d 1107, 639 N.Y.2d 199, 639 N.Y.S.2d 199, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2822 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

Memorandum: Supreme Court erred in denying plaintiffs’ motion to compel disclosure of defendant’s records relating to prior criminal activity at the apartment buildings owned and operated by defendant in Jackson Heights (see, CPLR 3101 [a]; Jacqueline S. v City of New York, 81 NY2d 288, 294, rearg denied 82 NY2d 749). A landlord has a duty to maintain minimal security measures in the face of foreseeable criminal intrusion upon tenants (Miller v State of New York, 62 NY2d 506, 513) and to make the public areas of its property reasonably safe for those who might enter (Nallan v Helmsley-Spear, Inc., 50 NY2d 507, 519). The records that plaintiffs seek are necessary in the prosecution of this negligence action and are material to the issues of foreseeability and whether defendant maintained the property in a safe condition (see, Nallan v Helmsley-Spear, Inc., supra, at 519-520). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Queens County, LeVine, J. — Discovery.) Present — Pine, J. P., Fallon, Callahan, Balio and Boehm, JJ.

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

Memorandum: Supreme Court erred in denying plaintiffs’ motion to compel disclosure of defendant’s records relating to prior criminal activity at the apartment buildings owned and operated by defendant in Jackson Heights (see, CPLR 3101 [a]; Jacqueline S. v City of New York, 81 NY2d 288, 294, rearg denied 82 NY2d 749). A landlord has a duty to maintain minimal security measures in the face of foreseeable criminal intrusion upon tenants (Miller v State of New York, 62 NY2d 506, 513) and to make the public areas of its property reasonably safe for those who might enter (Nallan v Helmsley-Spear, Inc., 50 NY2d 507, 519). The records that plaintiffs seek are necessary in the prosecution of this negligence action and are material to the issues of foreseeability and whether defendant maintained the property in a safe condition (see, Nallan v Helmsley-Spear, Inc., supra, at 519-520). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Queens County, LeVine, J. — Discovery.) Present — Pine, J. P., Fallon, Callahan, Balio and Boehm, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

225 A.D.2d 1107, 639 N.Y.2d 199, 639 N.Y.S.2d 199, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2822, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/maldonado-v-69-70-associates-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack