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

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

DecidedFebruary 3, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 236 A.D.2d 374 (Mizelle 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

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

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

236 A.D.2d 374, 654 N.Y.S.2d 325, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1004, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mizelle-v-new-york-city-housing-authority-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack