Perez v. McFarlane

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Perez v. McFarlane

18 A.D.3d 232, 794 N.Y.S.2d 359, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4871

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

DecidedMay 5, 2005

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 18 A.D.3d 232 (Perez v. McFarlane) 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

Perez v. McFarlane, 18 A.D.3d 232, 794 N.Y.S.2d 359, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4871 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Barry Salman, J.), entered June 22, 2004, which denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the motion granted and the complaint dismissed. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly.

Absent any proof other than plaintiff’s unsupported and [233]*233speculative claim that the intruder who assaulted her in her apartment gained access to the premises through a window in an adjacent garage/office that had been left open on two occasions several months earlier, the claim that defendants’ negligence or inadequate security measures permitted the intruder to gain entry is insufficient to defeat defendants’ motion for summary judgment (see Melville v New York City Hous. Auth., 242 AD2d 244, 245 [1997]). Concur—Tom, J.P., Andrias, Sullivan, Williams and Gonzalez, 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 June 22, 2004, which denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the motion granted and the complaint dismissed. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly.

Absent any proof other than plaintiff’s unsupported and [233]*233speculative claim that the intruder who assaulted her in her apartment gained access to the premises through a window in an adjacent garage/office that had been left open on two occasions several months earlier, the claim that defendants’ negligence or inadequate security measures permitted the intruder to gain entry is insufficient to defeat defendants’ motion for summary judgment (see Melville v New York City Hous. Auth., 242 AD2d 244, 245 [1997]). Concur—Tom, J.P., Andrias, Sullivan, Williams and Gonzalez, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

18 A.D.3d 232, 794 N.Y.S.2d 359, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4871, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/perez-v-mcfarlane-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack