Suarez v. Longwood Associates

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Suarez v. Longwood Associates

239 A.D.2d 250, 658 N.Y.S.2d 841, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5290

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided May 20, 1997·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Bertram Katz, J.), entered March 18, 1996, which granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

We agree with the motion court that, as a matter of law, the [251]*251drive-by shooting was an unforeseeable act breaking the chain of causation between defendants’ alleged failure to maintain the front door lock, which allegedly prevented plaintiffs from escaping into their building, and plaintiffs’ injuries (Santiago v New York City Hous. Auth., 101 AD2d 735, affd 63 NY2d 761). Concur—Murphy, P. J., Wallach, Tom and Mazzarelli, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Bertram Katz, J.), entered March 18, 1996, which granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

We agree with the motion court that, as a matter of law, the [251]*251drive-by shooting was an unforeseeable act breaking the chain of causation between defendants’ alleged failure to maintain the front door lock, which allegedly prevented plaintiffs from escaping into their building, and plaintiffs’ injuries (Santiago v New York City Hous. Auth., 101 AD2d 735, affd 63 NY2d 761). Concur—Murphy, P. J., Wallach, Tom and Mazzarelli, JJ.

Suarez v. Longwood Associates, 239 A.D.2d 250, 658 N.Y.S.2d 841, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5290 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

239 A.D.2d 250 (Suarez v. Longwood Associates) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related