McPherson v. New York City Housing Authority

228 A.D.2d 654, 646 N.Y.2d 16, 646 N.Y.S.2d 16, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7425
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJune 24, 1996
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 228 A.D.2d 654 (McPherson 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
McPherson v. New York City Housing Authority, 228 A.D.2d 654, 646 N.Y.2d 16, 646 N.Y.S.2d 16, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7425 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Opinion

The plaintiff Donna McPherson, a tenant in a public housing [655]*655project owned by the defendant, suffered multiple gunshot wounds as she was sitting on a bench located outside of her building. This action was commenced against the defendant to recover damages for her personal injuries and for the alleged psychological harm to her son, who witnessed the shooting.

For liability to be imposed upon a governmental defendant for the breach of a duty which is governmental in nature, such as providing police protection and adequate security, a plaintiff tenant must show that the defendant breached a special duty to him or her (see, Dawson v New York City Hous. Auth., 203 AD2d 55; Harris v New York City Hous. Auth., 187 AD2d 362, 363; Cuffy v City of New York, 69 NY2d 255). Here, the plaintiffs did not plead a special duty or show that a special relationship existed. In any event, the criminal act of the unknown assailant or assailants was not foreseeable in the normal course of events. In addition, any omission on the part of the defendant to provide security outside of the building cannot be said to be a substantial cause of the events which produced the injury. The causal connection between a criminal act in an essentially open-air, public area, and any negligence on the part of the defendant, is too attenuated, as a matter of law, to serve as a basis for the plaintiffs’ recovery (see, Miller v State of New York, 62 NY2d 506; Nallan v Helmsley-Spear, Inc., 50 NY2d 507, 519; Allen v New York City Hous. Auth., 203 AD2d 313, 314; Matter of Sanchez v New York City Hous. Auth., 194 AD2d 613; Blatt v New York City Hous. Auth., 123 AD2d 591, 592-593). Bracken, J. P., Thompson, Krausman and Gold-stein, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Full v. Monroe County Sheriff's Department
2017 NY Slip Op 5557 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)
McLAUGHLIN v. Hernandez
2004 NY Slip Op 24293 (New York Supreme Court, New York County, 2004)
McLaughlin v. Hernandez
4 Misc. 3d 964 (New York Supreme Court, 2004)
Sepulveda v. Empire of Hempstead, LLC
6 A.D.3d 603 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)
Harris v. City of New York
309 A.D.2d 899 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2003)
Thomas v. Foster Apartments Group
286 A.D.2d 492 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001)
Flowers v. City of New York
283 A.D.2d 198 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001)
Goodlin v. Medtronic, Inc.
167 F.3d 1367 (Eleventh Circuit, 1999)
Hairston v. New York City Housing Authority
238 A.D.2d 474 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1997)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
228 A.D.2d 654, 646 N.Y.2d 16, 646 N.Y.S.2d 16, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7425, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcpherson-v-new-york-city-housing-authority-nyappdiv-1996.