Rivera v. Bukolla Properties, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Rivera v. Bukolla Properties, Inc.

291 A.D.2d 201, 736 N.Y.S.2d 865, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1408

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

DecidedFebruary 5, 2002

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 291 A.D.2d 201 (Rivera v. Bukolla Properties, Inc.) 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

Rivera v. Bukolla Properties, Inc., 291 A.D.2d 201, 736 N.Y.S.2d 865, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1408 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Howard Silver, J.), entered May 4, 2001, which, in an action by a tenant against her landlord for personal injuries allegedly sustained because of inadequate building security, [202]*202denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Issues of fact exist as to whether prior crimes in the building made the assault on plaintiff foreseeable; if so, whether defendant had knowledge of such crimes; and, if so, whether defendant’s security measures were reasonable (see, Mason v U.E.S.S. Leasing Corp., 96 NY2d 875, 878; Todorovich v Columbia Univ., 245 AD2d 45, 46; Nallan v Helmsley-Spear, Inc., 50 NY2d 507, 520 n 8). Concur — Nardelli, J.P., Aridrias, Sullivan, Rubin and Saxe, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Howard Silver, J.), entered May 4, 2001, which, in an action by a tenant against her landlord for personal injuries allegedly sustained because of inadequate building security, [202]*202denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Issues of fact exist as to whether prior crimes in the building made the assault on plaintiff foreseeable; if so, whether defendant had knowledge of such crimes; and, if so, whether defendant’s security measures were reasonable (see, Mason v U.E.S.S. Leasing Corp., 96 NY2d 875, 878; Todorovich v Columbia Univ., 245 AD2d 45, 46; Nallan v Helmsley-Spear, Inc., 50 NY2d 507, 520 n 8). Concur — Nardelli, J.P., Aridrias, Sullivan, Rubin and Saxe, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

291 A.D.2d 201, 736 N.Y.S.2d 865, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1408, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rivera-v-bukolla-properties-inc-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack