Mizelle v. New York City Housing Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Mizelle v. New York City Housing Authority

236 A.D.2d 374, 654 N.Y.S.2d 325, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1004

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided February 3, 1997·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Price, J.), dated July 14, 1995, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the motion is denied.

It is well settled that a landlord has a duty to maintain minimal security measures to protect against foreseeable criminal intrusion upon tenants (see, Miller v State of New York, 62 NY2d 506; Perry v New York City Hous. Auth., 222 AD2d 567). Moreover, the issue of whether a landlord has taken reasonable safety precautions is "almost always” for the jury to resolve (see, Perry v New York City Hous. Auth., supra; Nallan v Helmsley-Spear, Inc., 50 NY2d 507, 520, n 8). Here, the plaintiffs have presented evidence creating issues of fact as to whether the defendant breached its duty of care to the plaintiffs and whether the alleged breach was a proximate cause of the plaintiffs’ injuries (see, e.g., Jacqueline S. v City of New York, 81 NY2d 288; Rosario v New York City Hous. Auth., 230 AD2d 900). Finally, contrary to the conclusion of the Supreme Court, the defendant’s duty, under these circumstances, did not constitute a governmental function (see, Miller v State of New York, 62 NY2d 506, supra). Accordingly, the defendant’s motion for summary judgment should have been denied. Copertino, J. P., Sullivan, Pizzuto and Krausman, 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, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Price, J.), dated July 14, 1995, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the motion is denied.

It is well settled that a landlord has a duty to maintain minimal security measures to protect against foreseeable criminal intrusion upon tenants (see, Miller v State of New York, 62 NY2d 506; Perry v New York City Hous. Auth., 222 AD2d 567). Moreover, the issue of whether a landlord has taken reasonable safety precautions is "almost always” for the jury to resolve (see, Perry v New York City Hous. Auth., supra; Nallan v Helmsley-Spear, Inc., 50 NY2d 507, 520, n 8). Here, the plaintiffs have presented evidence creating issues of fact as to whether the defendant breached its duty of care to the plaintiffs and whether the alleged breach was a proximate cause of the plaintiffs’ injuries (see, e.g., Jacqueline S. v City of New York, 81 NY2d 288; Rosario v New York City Hous. Auth., 230 AD2d 900). Finally, contrary to the conclusion of the Supreme Court, the defendant’s duty, under these circumstances, did not constitute a governmental function (see, Miller v State of New York, 62 NY2d 506, supra). Accordingly, the defendant’s motion for summary judgment should have been denied. Copertino, J. P., Sullivan, Pizzuto and Krausman, JJ., concur.

Mizelle v. New York City Housing Authority, 236 A.D.2d 374, 654 N.Y.S.2d 325, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1004 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

236 A.D.2d 374 (Mizelle v. New York City Housing Authority) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related