Opinion
10190 Index 309963/09
10-24-2019
Melissa LAWYER, etc., Plaintiff–Appellant, v. The CITY OF NEW YORK, Defendant, 922 Southern LLC, et al., Defendants–Respondents.
Law Office of Michael Biniakewitz, New York (Michael Biniakewitz of counsel), for appellant. Kaufman Dolowich Voluck, LLP, New York (Kevin J. O'Donnell of counsel), for 922 Southern LLC, East River Family Center LLC, David Levitan, Mark Goldberg and City Homes Associates, LLC, respondents. White Werbel & Fino, LLP, New York (Nathan Losman of counsel), for Basic Housing Inc., respondent.
Law Office of Michael Biniakewitz, New York (Michael Biniakewitz of counsel), for appellant.
Kaufman Dolowich Voluck, LLP, New York (Kevin J. O'Donnell of counsel), for 922 Southern LLC, East River Family Center LLC, David Levitan, Mark Goldberg and City Homes Associates, LLC, respondents.
White Werbel & Fino, LLP, New York (Nathan Losman of counsel), for Basic Housing Inc., respondent.
Friedman, J.P., Kapnick, Oing, Singh, JJ.
Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Mary Ann Brigantti, J.), entered on or about November 15, 2017, which, insofar as appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted the motions of defendants 922 Southern LLC, City Homes Associates, LLC and David Levitan, and defendant Basic Housing, Inc. (defendants) for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against them, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
"A landlord has a common-law duty to take minimal security precautions to protect tenants and members of the public from the foreseeable criminal acts of third parties" ( Wayburn v. Madison Land Ltd. Partnership, 282 A.D.2d 301, 303, 724 N.Y.S.2d 34 [1st Dept. 2001] ). Here, that duty was discharged by providing, inter alia, locking doors to the building in question with a buzzer and intercom system and video surveillance cameras ( Batista v. City of New York, 108 A.D.3d 484, 486, 970 N.Y.S.2d 197 [1st Dept. 2013] ; Anzalone v. Pan–Am Equities, 271 A.D.2d 307, 309, 706 N.Y.S.2d 409 [1st Dept. 2000] ). In addition, defendants prima facie established through testimony regarding a lack of prior robberies or violent crimes in the building that the shooting here was not foreseeable (see Todorovich v. Columbia Univ., 245 A.D.2d 45, 45–46, 665 N.Y.S.2d 77 [1st Dept. 1997], lv denied 92 N.Y.2d 805, 677 N.Y.S.2d 781, 700 N.E.2d 320 [1988] ). Plaintiff's reliance on vague testimony regarding unknown police activity at the building and speculation about drug sales, robberies, and other violent crimes is insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact. In any event, because plaintiff does not contend that the assailant was not an invited guest, any insufficiency with security precautions was not a proximate cause of the shooting (see Burgos v. Aqueduct Realty Corp., 92 N.Y.2d 544, 551, 684 N.Y.S.2d 139, 706 N.E.2d 1163 [1998] ).
We have considered plaintiff's remaining contentions and find them unavailing.