Targovnik v. 460 West 34th Street Associates

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Targovnik v. 460 West 34th Street Associates

224 A.D.2d 272, 638 N.Y.S.2d 21, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1053

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided February 13, 1996·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Stephen Crane, J.), entered on or about February 28, 1995, which, to the extent appealed from, denied defendants-appellants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The IAS Court properly denied appellants ("the Kaufman defendants”) summary judgment in this action arising out of personal injuries plaintiff allegedly sustained as a result of being assaulted in a building they owned and managed. There were triable material issues of fact as to whether the Kaufman defendants undertook reasonable steps to secure the premises and whether such security precautions, if any, were reasonable in light of their conceded knowledge that various forms of criminal activity had occurred in and around the subject building prior to the alleged assault (see, Crockett v New York City Hous. Auth., 189 AD2d 591; Freno v Sutton, 160 AD2d 597). We note plaintiff in his deposition testimony stated that the assailant was an intruder who entered the building through one of several unguarded entrances. We have considered defendants-appellants’ arguments and find them to be without merit. Concur — Milonas, J. P., Nardelli, Williams and Mazzarelli, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Stephen Crane, J.), entered on or about February 28, 1995, which, to the extent appealed from, denied defendants-appellants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The IAS Court properly denied appellants ("the Kaufman defendants”) summary judgment in this action arising out of personal injuries plaintiff allegedly sustained as a result of being assaulted in a building they owned and managed. There were triable material issues of fact as to whether the Kaufman defendants undertook reasonable steps to secure the premises and whether such security precautions, if any, were reasonable in light of their conceded knowledge that various forms of criminal activity had occurred in and around the subject building prior to the alleged assault (see, Crockett v New York City Hous. Auth., 189 AD2d 591; Freno v Sutton, 160 AD2d 597). We note plaintiff in his deposition testimony stated that the assailant was an intruder who entered the building through one of several unguarded entrances. We have considered defendants-appellants’ arguments and find them to be without merit. Concur — Milonas, J. P., Nardelli, Williams and Mazzarelli, JJ.

Targovnik v. 460 West 34th Street Associates, 224 A.D.2d 272, 638 N.Y.S.2d 21, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1053 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

224 A.D.2d 272 (Targovnik v. 460 West 34th Street Associates) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related