Selektor v. Smiles Parking Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Selektor v. Smiles Parking Co.

210 A.D.2d 18, 618 N.Y.S.2d 813

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

DecidedDecember 1, 1994

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 210 A.D.2d 18 (Selektor v. Smiles Parking Co.) 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

Selektor v. Smiles Parking Co., 210 A.D.2d 18, 618 N.Y.S.2d 813 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Joan Lobis, J.), entered on or about May 7, 1993, which, insofar as appealed from, granted defendants’ cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

In the absence of any evidence that defendants had experience with or knowledge of criminal activity inside or in the direct vicinity of the parking lot, the IAS Court correctly concluded that decedent’s murder inside the parking lot was not reasonably foreseeable and hence defendants had no duty to provide protective measures (compare, Jacqueline S. v City of New York, 81 NY2d 288, 295). Since summary judgment dismissing the complaint was properly granted, the motion to dismiss the third-party complaint was rendered moot. Concur —Ellerin, J. P., Wallach, Asch, Nardelli and Tom, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Joan Lobis, J.), entered on or about May 7, 1993, which, insofar as appealed from, granted defendants’ cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

In the absence of any evidence that defendants had experience with or knowledge of criminal activity inside or in the direct vicinity of the parking lot, the IAS Court correctly concluded that decedent’s murder inside the parking lot was not reasonably foreseeable and hence defendants had no duty to provide protective measures (compare, Jacqueline S. v City of New York, 81 NY2d 288, 295). Since summary judgment dismissing the complaint was properly granted, the motion to dismiss the third-party complaint was rendered moot. Concur —Ellerin, J. P., Wallach, Asch, Nardelli and Tom, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

210 A.D.2d 18, 618 N.Y.S.2d 813, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/selektor-v-smiles-parking-co-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack