Prabhakaran v. Investment Properties Associates

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Prabhakaran v. Investment Properties Associates

306 A.D.2d 180, 761 N.Y.S.2d 220, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7292

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

DecidedJune 24, 2003

StatusPublished

This text of 306 A.D.2d 180 (Prabhakaran v. Investment Properties Associates) 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

Prabhakaran v. Investment Properties Associates, 306 A.D.2d 180, 761 N.Y.S.2d 220, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7292 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Martin Schoenféld, J.), entered April 10, 2002, which granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Decedent tenant was murdered during business hours on the 19th floor of defendants’ commercial building. Although plaintiff seeks to hold defendants accountable for this tragic occurrence on a lax premises security theory, there were no witnesses to the crime and there is no evidence as to the identity of decedent’s assailant and, accordingly, no evidence that any failure by defendants to provide adequate premises security was causally related to decedent’s demise. Concur — Buckley, P.J., Tom, Sullivan and Marlow, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Martin Schoenféld, J.), entered April 10, 2002, which granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Decedent tenant was murdered during business hours on the 19th floor of defendants’ commercial building. Although plaintiff seeks to hold defendants accountable for this tragic occurrence on a lax premises security theory, there were no witnesses to the crime and there is no evidence as to the identity of decedent’s assailant and, accordingly, no evidence that any failure by defendants to provide adequate premises security was causally related to decedent’s demise. Concur — Buckley, P.J., Tom, Sullivan and Marlow, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

306 A.D.2d 180, 761 N.Y.S.2d 220, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7292, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/prabhakaran-v-investment-properties-associates-nyappdiv-2003.