Sweeney v. Port Authority of New York and New Jersey

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Sweeney v. Port Authority of New York and New Jersey

242 A.D.2d 569, 664 N.Y.S.2d 741, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8721

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

DecidedSeptember 15, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 242 A.D.2d 569 (Sweeney v. Port Authority of New York and New Jersey) 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

Sweeney v. Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, 242 A.D.2d 569, 664 N.Y.S.2d 741, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8721 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Lonschein, J.), dated May 31, 1996, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff Almarean Sweeney, an employee of Tele-Trip Co., Inc. (hereinafter Tele-Trip), was assaulted and robbed by a third party as she exited Tele-Trip’s office located in the east wing of the main terminal at LaGuardia Airport. The plaintiffs commenced the instant action alleging that the defendant had negligently and carelessly created unsafe, dangerous, and hazardous conditions during construction of the east wing and had failed to provide proper security and lighting in the walkway which led to the only unblocked Tele-Trip office entrance. The plaintiffs contend that the court erred in granting the defendant’s motion for summary judgment. We disagree.

[570]*570As the Supreme Court correctly held, the plaintiffs failed to establish that the defendant had notice of prior criminal activity so as to make the present crime foreseeable (see, Mendez v 441 Ocean Ave., 234 AD2d 524). The plaintiffs’ conclusory allegations of prior robberies were patently insufficient to raise triable issues of fact regarding foreseeability or causation (see, Rodriguez v New York City Hous. Auth., 87 NY2d 887; Iannelli v Powers, 114 AD2d 157).

The plaintiffs’ remaining contentions are without merit. O’Brien, J. P., Joy, Goldstein and Luciano, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Lonschein, J.), dated May 31, 1996, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff Almarean Sweeney, an employee of Tele-Trip Co., Inc. (hereinafter Tele-Trip), was assaulted and robbed by a third party as she exited Tele-Trip’s office located in the east wing of the main terminal at LaGuardia Airport. The plaintiffs commenced the instant action alleging that the defendant had negligently and carelessly created unsafe, dangerous, and hazardous conditions during construction of the east wing and had failed to provide proper security and lighting in the walkway which led to the only unblocked Tele-Trip office entrance. The plaintiffs contend that the court erred in granting the defendant’s motion for summary judgment. We disagree.

[570]*570As the Supreme Court correctly held, the plaintiffs failed to establish that the defendant had notice of prior criminal activity so as to make the present crime foreseeable (see, Mendez v 441 Ocean Ave., 234 AD2d 524). The plaintiffs’ conclusory allegations of prior robberies were patently insufficient to raise triable issues of fact regarding foreseeability or causation (see, Rodriguez v New York City Hous. Auth., 87 NY2d 887; Iannelli v Powers, 114 AD2d 157).

The plaintiffs’ remaining contentions are without merit. O’Brien, J. P., Joy, Goldstein and Luciano, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

242 A.D.2d 569, 664 N.Y.S.2d 741, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8721, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sweeney-v-port-authority-of-new-york-and-new-jersey-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack