Travieso v. 3908 Bronx Blvd. Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Travieso v. 3908 Bronx Blvd. Corp.

259 A.D.2d 276, 686 N.Y.S.2d 42, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2261

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

DecidedMarch 4, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 259 A.D.2d 276 (Travieso v. 3908 Bronx Blvd. Corp.) 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

Travieso v. 3908 Bronx Blvd. Corp., 259 A.D.2d 276, 686 N.Y.S.2d 42, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2261 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Bertram Katz, J.), entered July 21, 1997, which, in an action against defendants owner and managing agent for personal injuries sustained as a result of allegedly inadequate building security, granted defendants’ motion for summary [277]*277judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the motion denied and the complaint reinstated.

Plaintiff asserts that she was attacked on October 6, 1995 in an indoor parking garage, owned and operated by defendants, where she rents a space to park her car. During the course of the assault, plaintiff was thrown to the floor and was injured. It is uncontested that because the electric garage door at the lot had broken several months earlier, it had been removed by the defendants and was not yet replaced at the time of the incident.

Although plaintiff was unable to provide any direct evidence as to how the assailants gained entry into the garage, i.e., whether they came in through the open garage door entrance, through the other locked door, or as to whether they were tenants or guests of tenants in the building, plaintiff maintains that she knew that they were “intruders” rather than tenants or guests because she had been a tenant of the garage for two years, knew all of the other garage tenants, and had never seen the perpetrators before.

The foregoing satisfies plaintiff’s initial burden of raising a triable issue of fact with evidence from which proximate cause may be reasonably inferred (see, Burgos v Aqueduct Realty Corp. (92 NY2d 544). “[T]he possibility of another explanation for the event is sufficiently remote or technical ‘to enable the jury to reach its verdict based not upon speculation, but upon the logical inferences to be drawn from the evidence’ ” (supra, at 550, quoting Schneider v Kings Highway Hosp. Ctr., 67 NY2d 743, 744). Concur — Tom, J. P., Mazzarelli, Andrias and Saxe, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Bertram Katz, J.), entered July 21, 1997, which, in an action against defendants owner and managing agent for personal injuries sustained as a result of allegedly inadequate building security, granted defendants’ motion for summary [277]*277judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the motion denied and the complaint reinstated.

Plaintiff asserts that she was attacked on October 6, 1995 in an indoor parking garage, owned and operated by defendants, where she rents a space to park her car. During the course of the assault, plaintiff was thrown to the floor and was injured. It is uncontested that because the electric garage door at the lot had broken several months earlier, it had been removed by the defendants and was not yet replaced at the time of the incident.

Although plaintiff was unable to provide any direct evidence as to how the assailants gained entry into the garage, i.e., whether they came in through the open garage door entrance, through the other locked door, or as to whether they were tenants or guests of tenants in the building, plaintiff maintains that she knew that they were “intruders” rather than tenants or guests because she had been a tenant of the garage for two years, knew all of the other garage tenants, and had never seen the perpetrators before.

The foregoing satisfies plaintiff’s initial burden of raising a triable issue of fact with evidence from which proximate cause may be reasonably inferred (see, Burgos v Aqueduct Realty Corp. (92 NY2d 544). “[T]he possibility of another explanation for the event is sufficiently remote or technical ‘to enable the jury to reach its verdict based not upon speculation, but upon the logical inferences to be drawn from the evidence’ ” (supra, at 550, quoting Schneider v Kings Highway Hosp. Ctr., 67 NY2d 743, 744). Concur — Tom, J. P., Mazzarelli, Andrias and Saxe, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

259 A.D.2d 276, 686 N.Y.S.2d 42, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2261, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/travieso-v-3908-bronx-blvd-corp-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack