Newell v. Swiss Reassurance Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Newell v. Swiss Reassurance Co.

181 A.D.2d 505, 580 N.Y.S.2d 361, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3339

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

DecidedMarch 12, 1992

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 181 A.D.2d 505 (Newell v. Swiss Reassurance Co.) 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

Newell v. Swiss Reassurance Co., 181 A.D.2d 505, 580 N.Y.S.2d 361, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3339 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

— Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Eugene L. Nardelli, J.), entered September 20, 1991, which denied defendant-appellant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint without prejudice to renewal upon completion of disclosure, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

[506]*506A party who possesses realty either as an owner or a tenant is under a duty to exercise reasonable care to maintain the premises in a safe condition (see, Manning v New York Tel. Co., 157 AD2d 264), including taking reasonable precautions to protect members of the public from foreseeable criminal acts of third persons (Nallan v Helmsley-Spear, Inc., 50 NY2d 507, 518-519; Carroll v Ar De Realty Corp., 167 AD2d 216). Plaintiff alleges that she was employed by a concern located on premises owned by defendant-respondent and exclusively leased by defendant-appellant, and that she sustained injuries when she was assaulted and robbed by an unknown assailant as she stepped out of an elevator into a lobby area of the premises that was unlit in the early morning hours when she was required to report for work. We agree with the IAS court that it cannot be held as a matter of law that appellant owed no duty to plaintiff to secure the area in question from intruders, there being questions of fact as to whether appellant exercised control over the subject area with respect to lighting and security. Concur — Murphy, P. J., Rosenberger, Ellerin, Kupferman and Kassal, JJ.

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

— Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Eugene L. Nardelli, J.), entered September 20, 1991, which denied defendant-appellant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint without prejudice to renewal upon completion of disclosure, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

[506]*506A party who possesses realty either as an owner or a tenant is under a duty to exercise reasonable care to maintain the premises in a safe condition (see, Manning v New York Tel. Co., 157 AD2d 264), including taking reasonable precautions to protect members of the public from foreseeable criminal acts of third persons (Nallan v Helmsley-Spear, Inc., 50 NY2d 507, 518-519; Carroll v Ar De Realty Corp., 167 AD2d 216). Plaintiff alleges that she was employed by a concern located on premises owned by defendant-respondent and exclusively leased by defendant-appellant, and that she sustained injuries when she was assaulted and robbed by an unknown assailant as she stepped out of an elevator into a lobby area of the premises that was unlit in the early morning hours when she was required to report for work. We agree with the IAS court that it cannot be held as a matter of law that appellant owed no duty to plaintiff to secure the area in question from intruders, there being questions of fact as to whether appellant exercised control over the subject area with respect to lighting and security. Concur — Murphy, P. J., Rosenberger, Ellerin, Kupferman and Kassal, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

181 A.D.2d 505, 580 N.Y.S.2d 361, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3339, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/newell-v-swiss-reassurance-co-nyappdiv-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack