Margolis v. 2640 Realty Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Margolis v. 2640 Realty Corp.

204 A.D.2d 176, 611 N.Y.S.2d 554, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5348

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

DecidedMay 17, 1994

StatusPublished

This text of 204 A.D.2d 176 (Margolis v. 2640 Realty Corp.) 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

Margolis v. 2640 Realty Corp., 204 A.D.2d 176, 611 N.Y.S.2d 554, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5348 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Angela M. Mazzarelli, J.), entered on or about November 23, 1993, granting defendants and third party plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The IAS Court properly concluded that plaintiffs failed to establish a prima facie case of negligence. A landlord has a [177]*177duty to take reasonable security measures to protect his tenants, or others who might reasonably be expected to be on the premises, from the intentional criminal acts of others if he knows or should know that common areas on the premises have been the scene of recurrent criminal activity (see, Einhorn v Seeley, 136 AD2d 122, 126, appeal dismissed 72 NY2d 914). Plaintiff Ishagah Margolis, who was on the premises in his role as a driver for the tenant car service, offered no evidence that either defendant was aware that unauthorized persons had entered the building on previous occasions. Moreover, as the IAS Court noted, it appears that a prior assault (referred to by a witness for plaintiff) "was between two [car service] employees over a work-related dispute, for which the landlord cannot be held liable, as both [employees] had a right to be in the Building”. Concur—Ellerin, J. P., Ross, Nardelli and Williams, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Angela M. Mazzarelli, J.), entered on or about November 23, 1993, granting defendants and third party plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The IAS Court properly concluded that plaintiffs failed to establish a prima facie case of negligence. A landlord has a [177]*177duty to take reasonable security measures to protect his tenants, or others who might reasonably be expected to be on the premises, from the intentional criminal acts of others if he knows or should know that common areas on the premises have been the scene of recurrent criminal activity (see, Einhorn v Seeley, 136 AD2d 122, 126, appeal dismissed 72 NY2d 914). Plaintiff Ishagah Margolis, who was on the premises in his role as a driver for the tenant car service, offered no evidence that either defendant was aware that unauthorized persons had entered the building on previous occasions. Moreover, as the IAS Court noted, it appears that a prior assault (referred to by a witness for plaintiff) "was between two [car service] employees over a work-related dispute, for which the landlord cannot be held liable, as both [employees] had a right to be in the Building”. Concur—Ellerin, J. P., Ross, Nardelli and Williams, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

204 A.D.2d 176, 611 N.Y.S.2d 554, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5348, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/margolis-v-2640-realty-corp-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack