From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Farrell v. Vega

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 31, 2003
303 A.D.2d 716 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)

Opinion

2002-04145

Argued March 7, 2003.

March 31, 2003.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Emerson, J.), dated February 25, 2002, as granted the motion of the defendants Peter Notarnicola and Peter Notarnicola, Jr., for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them.

Augustine Steuerwald, LLP, Bellport, N.Y. (Harold A. Steuerwald of counsel), for appellants.

Ryan, Perrone Hartlein, P.C., Mineola, N.Y. (Robin Mary Heaney and William T. Ryan of counsel), for respondents.

Before: ANITA R. FLORIO, J.P., SONDRA MILLER, STEPHEN G. CRANE, REINALDO E. RIVERA, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

To recover damages from an owner of real property for injuries caused by the acts of criminals on the premises, a plaintiff must produce evidence indicating that the owner knew or should have known of the probability of conduct on the part of third persons which was likely to endanger the safety of those lawfully on the premises (see Jacqueline S. v. City of New York, 81 N.Y.2d 288, 294-295; Nallan v. Helmsley-Spear, Inc., 50 N.Y.2d 507, 519). Here, the Supreme Court properly found that, after the respondents established their prima facie entitlement to summary judgment, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the respondents had such notice of prior criminal activity to make the assault upon the plaintiff Vincent Farrell foreseeable (see Erlich v. Greenacre Assoc., 295 A.D.2d 558, lv denied 99 N.Y.2d 501; Alonso v. Branchinelli, 277 A.D.2d 408, 409; Davila v. 1750 Realty Assocs., 268 A.D.2d 553; Novikova v. Greenbriar Owners Corp., 258 A.D.2d 149, 152; Cooney v. Town of Oyster Bay, 251 A.D.2d 364; Green v. Grand Baldwin Assocs., 247 A.D.2d 511). Accordingly, the respondents' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them was properly granted.

FLORIO, J.P., S. MILLER, CRANE and RIVERA, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Farrell v. Vega

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 31, 2003
303 A.D.2d 716 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
Case details for

Farrell v. Vega

Case Details

Full title:VINCENT FARRELL, ET AL., appellants, v. EDDIE A. VEGA, ET AL., defendants…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Mar 31, 2003

Citations

303 A.D.2d 716 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
756 N.Y.S.2d 871

Citing Cases

Ward v. Pyramid Company of Onondaga

Even assuming, arguendo, that defendants met their initial burden of establishing that the attack on…

Ronald v. New York

In support of its motion, however, defendant submitted evidence that, prior to plaintiffs injury, an employee…