Schwartz v. Niki Trading Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Schwartz v. Niki Trading Corp.

222 A.D.2d 214, 634 N.Y.S.2d 481, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12621

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

DecidedDecember 5, 1995

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 222 A.D.2d 214 (Schwartz v. Niki Trading Corp.) 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

Schwartz v. Niki Trading Corp., 222 A.D.2d 214, 634 N.Y.S.2d 481, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12621 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Emily Jane Goodman, J.), entered March 30, 1995, which denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously reversed, on the law, and the motion granted, without costs. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment in favor of defendants dismissing the complaint.

The within action seeks damages for injuries suffered by plaintiff Herbert H. Schwartz during a robbery in the men’s room of a building owned or managed by the defendants.

Although the gravamen of plaintiffs’ complaint is that defendants negligently failed to take reasonable precautionary measures to provide adequate security and surveillance in the building, in countering defendants’ motion for summary judgment plaintiffs failed to provide any evidence indicating that the person who attacked plaintiff was an intruder or gained access to the building because of any lapse in security. Under these circumstances, there is no triable issue of fact as to whether any alleged negligence on defendants’ part was the proximate cause of plaintiff’s injuries (see, Dawson v New York City Hous. Auth., 203 AD2d 55) and summary judgment was warranted. Concur — Ellerin, J. P., Wallach, Nardelli and Williams, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Emily Jane Goodman, J.), entered March 30, 1995, which denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously reversed, on the law, and the motion granted, without costs. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment in favor of defendants dismissing the complaint.

The within action seeks damages for injuries suffered by plaintiff Herbert H. Schwartz during a robbery in the men’s room of a building owned or managed by the defendants.

Although the gravamen of plaintiffs’ complaint is that defendants negligently failed to take reasonable precautionary measures to provide adequate security and surveillance in the building, in countering defendants’ motion for summary judgment plaintiffs failed to provide any evidence indicating that the person who attacked plaintiff was an intruder or gained access to the building because of any lapse in security. Under these circumstances, there is no triable issue of fact as to whether any alleged negligence on defendants’ part was the proximate cause of plaintiff’s injuries (see, Dawson v New York City Hous. Auth., 203 AD2d 55) and summary judgment was warranted. Concur — Ellerin, J. P., Wallach, Nardelli and Williams, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

222 A.D.2d 214, 634 N.Y.S.2d 481, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12621, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/schwartz-v-niki-trading-corp-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack