Torres v. New York City Housing Authority

710 N.E.2d 264, 93 N.Y.2d 828, 687 N.Y.S.2d 618, 1999 N.Y. LEXIS 25
New York Court of Appeals·Decided February 16, 1999·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed, with costs, and defendant’s motion for summary judgment denied.

Although plaintiffs assailants in this premises security case remain unidentified, plaintiff has raised a triable issue of fact as to whether it was “more likely or more reasonable than not” that the assailants were intruders “who gained access to the premises through a negligently maintained entrance” (Burgos v Aqueduct Realty Corp., 92 NY2d 544, 548).

Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Bellacosa, Smith, Levine, Ciparick, Wesley and Rosenblatt concur in memorandum.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.4 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.4), order reversed, etc.

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

Torres v. New York City Housing Authority, 710 N.E.2d 264, 93 N.Y.2d 828, 687 N.Y.S.2d 618, 1999 N.Y. LEXIS 25 (N.Y. 1999).

710 N.E.2d 264 (Torres v. New York City Housing Authority) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Rivera v. 1652 Popham Associates, LLC
31 A.D.3d 297 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)
Reynolds v. New York City Housing Authority
271 A.D.2d 280 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)