Perez v. New York City Housing Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Perez v. New York City Housing Authority

267 A.D.2d 52, 699 N.Y.S.2d 390, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12666

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

DecidedDecember 9, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 267 A.D.2d 52 (Perez 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

Perez v. New York City Housing Authority, 267 A.D.2d 52, 699 N.Y.S.2d 390, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12666 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, [53]*53Supreme Court, New York County (Alice Schlesinger, J.), entered April 24, 1998, granting defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the motion denied and the matter remanded for further proceedings.

Plaintiff, a non-tenant, was assaulted on an elevator in a building owned and maintained by defendant Housing Authority shortly after 1:00 p.m. as she was reporting to her job as a home health care attendant. Allegedly, no locks or intercoms at the front door or guards prevented access to the building from the street. A group of people had waited for the elevator in the lobby, including the perpetrator, who was the last to arrive and did not interact with anyone else present. Several persons got on and off at various floors, none of whom seemed to recognize the perpetrator, who seemed to make no effort to conceal himself. When only plaintiff and the perpetrator remained, he stopped the elevator and, without seeming concerned that he would be subsequently recognized, assaulted her until she passed out. Since these facts as alleged by plaintiff make it “more likely or more reasonable than not that the assailant was an intruder who gained access to the premises through a negligently maintained entrance” (Burgos v Aqueduct Realty Corp., 92 NY2d 544, 551), a factual issue on proximate cause is presented for trial. Concur — Ellerin, P. J., Rosenberger, Tom, Andrias and Buckley, JJ.

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

—Order, [53]*53Supreme Court, New York County (Alice Schlesinger, J.), entered April 24, 1998, granting defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the motion denied and the matter remanded for further proceedings.

Plaintiff, a non-tenant, was assaulted on an elevator in a building owned and maintained by defendant Housing Authority shortly after 1:00 p.m. as she was reporting to her job as a home health care attendant. Allegedly, no locks or intercoms at the front door or guards prevented access to the building from the street. A group of people had waited for the elevator in the lobby, including the perpetrator, who was the last to arrive and did not interact with anyone else present. Several persons got on and off at various floors, none of whom seemed to recognize the perpetrator, who seemed to make no effort to conceal himself. When only plaintiff and the perpetrator remained, he stopped the elevator and, without seeming concerned that he would be subsequently recognized, assaulted her until she passed out. Since these facts as alleged by plaintiff make it “more likely or more reasonable than not that the assailant was an intruder who gained access to the premises through a negligently maintained entrance” (Burgos v Aqueduct Realty Corp., 92 NY2d 544, 551), a factual issue on proximate cause is presented for trial. Concur — Ellerin, P. J., Rosenberger, Tom, Andrias and Buckley, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

267 A.D.2d 52, 699 N.Y.S.2d 390, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12666, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/perez-v-new-york-city-housing-authority-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack