Tensen v. F & M Realty Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Tensen v. F & M Realty Co.

235 A.D.2d 252, 652 N.Y.S.2d 279, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 233

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

DecidedJanuary 14, 1997

StatusPublished

This text of 235 A.D.2d 252 (Tensen v. F & M Realty 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

Tensen v. F & M Realty Co., 235 A.D.2d 252, 652 N.Y.S.2d 279, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 233 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Beverly Cohen, J.), entered on or about April 17, 1996, which denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

In this action for damages for personal injuries sustained by plaintiff during the early morning hours when she was allegedly attacked by an intruder in her second floor apartment, the motion court properly determined that there are triable issues of fact. Such issues include whether the landlord met its duty to provide adequate security measures in the building in the face of "foreseeable criminal intrusion upon tenants” (Miller v State of New York, 62 NY2d 506, 513), especially with respect to the alleged lack of lighting in the rear yard in violation of Multiple Dwelling Law § 26 (7-a), and the foreseeable relationship between violent crime and the absence of adequate light (see, Loeser v Nathan Hale Gardens, 73 AD2d 187, 190-191). Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Milonas, Rosenberger and Rubin, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Beverly Cohen, J.), entered on or about April 17, 1996, which denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

In this action for damages for personal injuries sustained by plaintiff during the early morning hours when she was allegedly attacked by an intruder in her second floor apartment, the motion court properly determined that there are triable issues of fact. Such issues include whether the landlord met its duty to provide adequate security measures in the building in the face of "foreseeable criminal intrusion upon tenants” (Miller v State of New York, 62 NY2d 506, 513), especially with respect to the alleged lack of lighting in the rear yard in violation of Multiple Dwelling Law § 26 (7-a), and the foreseeable relationship between violent crime and the absence of adequate light (see, Loeser v Nathan Hale Gardens, 73 AD2d 187, 190-191). Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Milonas, Rosenberger and Rubin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

235 A.D.2d 252, 652 N.Y.S.2d 279, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 233, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tensen-v-f-m-realty-co-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack