Palmer v. Murray Hill Mews Owners Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Palmer v. Murray Hill Mews Owners Corp.

2017 NY Slip Op 4565, 151 A.D.3d 498, 53 N.Y.S.3d 541

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

DecidedJune 8, 2017

Docket4216 155469/14

StatusPublished

This text of 2017 NY Slip Op 4565 (Palmer v. Murray Hill Mews Owners Corp.) 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

Palmer v. Murray Hill Mews Owners Corp., 2017 NY Slip Op 4565, 151 A.D.3d 498, 53 N.Y.S.3d 541 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Gerald Lebovits, J.), entered on or about August 25, 2016, which granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendants established prima facie that there was no causal connection between any actions or omissions on their part and the theft of plaintiffs’jewelry from their apartment (see Sakhai v 411 E. 57th St. Corp., 272 AD2d 231 [1st Dept 2000]). Their *499 evidence shows that the employee who plaintiffs allege is the thief did not have access to the key to plaintiffs’ apartment and that the computer system that tracks access to keys to residents’ apartments did not reveal that anyone obtained access to the key to plaintiffs’ apartment during the relevant period. It also showed that there were no previous incidents of theft that would have put defendants on notice of the likelihood of criminal activity in the building. In opposition, plaintiffs relied on speculation, based on the absence of signs of forced entry and the fact that the subject employee had been disciplined for unrelated conduct, and hearsay, none of which raises a triable issue of fact (see id.; see also Segev v Trump Parc Condominium, 215 AD2d 322 [1st Dept 1995]).

Concur—Friedman, J.P., Gische, Kapnick, Kahn and Gesmer, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Gerald Lebovits, J.), entered on or about August 25, 2016, which granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendants established prima facie that there was no causal connection between any actions or omissions on their part and the theft of plaintiffs’jewelry from their apartment (see Sakhai v 411 E. 57th St. Corp., 272 AD2d 231 [1st Dept 2000]). Their *499 evidence shows that the employee who plaintiffs allege is the thief did not have access to the key to plaintiffs’ apartment and that the computer system that tracks access to keys to residents’ apartments did not reveal that anyone obtained access to the key to plaintiffs’ apartment during the relevant period. It also showed that there were no previous incidents of theft that would have put defendants on notice of the likelihood of criminal activity in the building. In opposition, plaintiffs relied on speculation, based on the absence of signs of forced entry and the fact that the subject employee had been disciplined for unrelated conduct, and hearsay, none of which raises a triable issue of fact (see id.; see also Segev v Trump Parc Condominium, 215 AD2d 322 [1st Dept 1995]).

Concur—Friedman, J.P., Gische, Kapnick, Kahn and Gesmer, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2017 NY Slip Op 4565, 151 A.D.3d 498, 53 N.Y.S.3d 541, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/palmer-v-murray-hill-mews-owners-corp-nyappdiv-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack