Torres v. New York City Housing Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Torres v. New York City Housing Authority

251 A.D.2d 54, 673 N.Y.S.2d 661, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6445

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

DecidedJune 4, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 251 A.D.2d 54 (Torres v. New York City Housing Authority) 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

Torres v. New York City Housing Authority, 251 A.D.2d 54, 673 N.Y.S.2d 661, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6445 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Kenneth Thompson, Jr., J.), entered April 28, 1997, which granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The assailants were never apprehended or otherwise identified and in the absence of evidence of a provable claim that the [55]*55assailants were intruders and, accordingly, that they could not have gained access to the premises but for defendant’s negligent maintenance of the front door lock, the grant of defendant’s motion for summary judgment was proper (Burgos v Aqueduct Realty Corp., 245 AD2d 221; Gomez v New York City Hous. Auth., 249 AD2d 175; cf., Naranjo v New York City Hous. Auth., 247 AD2d 246). Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Ellerin, Nardelli and Andrias, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Kenneth Thompson, Jr., J.), entered April 28, 1997, which granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The assailants were never apprehended or otherwise identified and in the absence of evidence of a provable claim that the [55]*55assailants were intruders and, accordingly, that they could not have gained access to the premises but for defendant’s negligent maintenance of the front door lock, the grant of defendant’s motion for summary judgment was proper (Burgos v Aqueduct Realty Corp., 245 AD2d 221; Gomez v New York City Hous. Auth., 249 AD2d 175; cf., Naranjo v New York City Hous. Auth., 247 AD2d 246). Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Ellerin, Nardelli and Andrias, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

251 A.D.2d 54, 673 N.Y.S.2d 661, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6445, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/torres-v-new-york-city-housing-authority-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack