Pandozy v. Kalmen

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Pandozy v. Kalmen

250 A.D.2d 481, 673 N.Y.S.2d 121, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6187

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

DecidedMay 19, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 250 A.D.2d 481 (Pandozy v. Kalmen) 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

Pandozy v. Kalmen, 250 A.D.2d 481, 673 N.Y.S.2d 121, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6187 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Lorraine Miller, J.), entered on or about March 25, 1997, which granted the motion of defendants Elliot Kalmen and Elliot Kalmen doing business as Lid Fla Reálty Co. for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against them, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

We agree with the IAS Court that there are no factual issues as to whether defendant commercial landlord’s alleged negligence was the proximate cause of water damage to plaintiffs premises, since plaintiff has failed to submit any evidence tending to prove that the vandal who damaged the sprinkler system in the premises above his was an intruder who gained access to the building by means of a broken front door lock (see, Rojas v Lynn, 218 AD2d 611, lv denied 87 NY2d 804; Wright,v New York City Hous. Auth., 208 AD2d 327, 330). Nor, under the circumstances of this case, did the landlord’s duty to take minimal security precautions to protect tenants from foreseeable harm (see, Miller v State of New York, 62 NY2d 506, [482]*482513) encompass the landlord’s provision of safeguards additional to those already in place. Concur — Milonas, J. P., Rosenberger, Nardelli, Wallach and Rubin, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Lorraine Miller, J.), entered on or about March 25, 1997, which granted the motion of defendants Elliot Kalmen and Elliot Kalmen doing business as Lid Fla Reálty Co. for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against them, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

We agree with the IAS Court that there are no factual issues as to whether defendant commercial landlord’s alleged negligence was the proximate cause of water damage to plaintiffs premises, since plaintiff has failed to submit any evidence tending to prove that the vandal who damaged the sprinkler system in the premises above his was an intruder who gained access to the building by means of a broken front door lock (see, Rojas v Lynn, 218 AD2d 611, lv denied 87 NY2d 804; Wright,v New York City Hous. Auth., 208 AD2d 327, 330). Nor, under the circumstances of this case, did the landlord’s duty to take minimal security precautions to protect tenants from foreseeable harm (see, Miller v State of New York, 62 NY2d 506, [482]*482513) encompass the landlord’s provision of safeguards additional to those already in place. Concur — Milonas, J. P., Rosenberger, Nardelli, Wallach and Rubin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

250 A.D.2d 481, 673 N.Y.S.2d 121, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6187, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pandozy-v-kalmen-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack