Padilla v. 960 Manangement, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Padilla v. 960 Manangement, Inc.

195 A.D.2d 333, 600 N.Y.S.2d 22, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7129

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

DecidedJuly 8, 1993

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 195 A.D.2d 333 (Padilla v. 960 Manangement, Inc.) 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

Padilla v. 960 Manangement, Inc., 195 A.D.2d 333, 600 N.Y.S.2d 22, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7129 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Anita Florio, J.), entered on July 3, 1991, upon a jury verdict in favor of plaintiff and against defendant-appellant, in the sum of $252,900, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Upon review of the record in the light most favorable to plaintiff, the prevailing party, we find that a fair interpretation of the evidence supports the jury’s finding that plaintiff’s injuries were proximately caused by defendant landlord’s negligence in failing to properly maintain lobby door locks (see, Miller v State of New York, 62 NY2d 506). Conflicting testimony concerning the condition of the door on the day of the assault was properly left to the jury to resolve, as was the issue of the foreseeability of danger and the reasonableness of defendant’s security measures (Jacqueline S. v City of New York, 81 NY2d 288). Simply stated, no basis exists to disturb the jury’s finding that the unknown assailant gained access to the premises as a result of the broken door lock, given the proof that the lock was periodically inoperable and had not been repaired for some time prior to the incident. We have reviewed the defendant’s other contentions and find them to be without merit. Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Kupferman, Asch and Rubin, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Anita Florio, J.), entered on July 3, 1991, upon a jury verdict in favor of plaintiff and against defendant-appellant, in the sum of $252,900, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Upon review of the record in the light most favorable to plaintiff, the prevailing party, we find that a fair interpretation of the evidence supports the jury’s finding that plaintiff’s injuries were proximately caused by defendant landlord’s negligence in failing to properly maintain lobby door locks (see, Miller v State of New York, 62 NY2d 506). Conflicting testimony concerning the condition of the door on the day of the assault was properly left to the jury to resolve, as was the issue of the foreseeability of danger and the reasonableness of defendant’s security measures (Jacqueline S. v City of New York, 81 NY2d 288). Simply stated, no basis exists to disturb the jury’s finding that the unknown assailant gained access to the premises as a result of the broken door lock, given the proof that the lock was periodically inoperable and had not been repaired for some time prior to the incident. We have reviewed the defendant’s other contentions and find them to be without merit. Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Kupferman, Asch and Rubin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

195 A.D.2d 333, 600 N.Y.S.2d 22, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7129, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/padilla-v-960-manangement-inc-nyappdiv-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack