Patton v. New York City Housing Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Patton v. New York City Housing Authority

140 A.D.3d 659, 33 N.Y.S.3d 719

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

DecidedJune 30, 2016

Docket1407 309078/11

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 140 A.D.3d 659 (Patton 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

Patton v. New York City Housing Authority, 140 A.D.3d 659, 33 N.Y.S.3d 719 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Barry Salman, J.), entered March 26, 2015, which granted the motion of defendant New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA) for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against it, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion denied.

In this action alleging negligent premises security, NYCHA met its prima facie burden of demonstrating that the assailants’ identities remain unknown and that it could not be established that they were intruders who gained access to the building due to the broken door locks (see Smith v New York City Hous. Auth., 130 AD3d 427 [1st Dept 2015]). In opposition, however, plaintiff raised a triable issue of fact by pres- *660 exiting evidence from which intruder status may be inferred. Specifically, plaintiff, who lived in the building for more than 25 years, did not recognize his assailants who did not conceal their faces (see Romero v Twin Parks Southeast Houses, Inc., 70 AD3d 484 [1st Dept 2010]; Esteves v City of New York, 44 AD3d 538 [1st Dept 2007]; Perez v New York City Hous. Auth., 294 AD2d 279 [1st Dept 2002]).

Concur — Friedman, J.P., Renwick, Andrias, Gische and Webber, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Barry Salman, J.), entered March 26, 2015, which granted the motion of defendant New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA) for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against it, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion denied.

In this action alleging negligent premises security, NYCHA met its prima facie burden of demonstrating that the assailants’ identities remain unknown and that it could not be established that they were intruders who gained access to the building due to the broken door locks (see Smith v New York City Hous. Auth., 130 AD3d 427 [1st Dept 2015]). In opposition, however, plaintiff raised a triable issue of fact by pres- *660 exiting evidence from which intruder status may be inferred. Specifically, plaintiff, who lived in the building for more than 25 years, did not recognize his assailants who did not conceal their faces (see Romero v Twin Parks Southeast Houses, Inc., 70 AD3d 484 [1st Dept 2010]; Esteves v City of New York, 44 AD3d 538 [1st Dept 2007]; Perez v New York City Hous. Auth., 294 AD2d 279 [1st Dept 2002]).

Concur — Friedman, J.P., Renwick, Andrias, Gische and Webber, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

140 A.D.3d 659, 33 N.Y.S.3d 719, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/patton-v-new-york-city-housing-authority-nyappdiv-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack