From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Maldonado v. 69-70 Associates

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Mar 8, 1996
225 A.D.2d 1107 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)

Opinion

March 8, 1996

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County, LeVine, J.

Present — Pine, J.P., Fallon, Callahan, Balio and Boehm, JJ.


Order insofar as appealed from unanimously reversed on the law with costs and motion granted. Memorandum: Supreme Court erred in denying plaintiffs' motion to compel disclosure of defendant's records relating to prior criminal activity at the apartment buildings owned and operated by defendant in Jackson Heights ( see, CPLR 3101 [a]; Jacqueline S. v City of New York, 81 N.Y.2d 288, 294, rearg denied 82 N.Y.2d 749). A landlord has a duty to maintain minimal security measures in the face of foreseeable criminal intrusion upon tenants ( Miller v State of New York, 62 N.Y.2d 506, 513) and to make the public areas of its property reasonably safe for those who might enter ( Nallan v Helmsley-Spear, Inc., 50 N.Y.2d 507, 519). The records that plaintiffs seek are necessary in the prosecution of this negligence action and are material to the issues of foreseeability and whether defendant maintained the property in a safe condition ( see, Nallan v Helmsley-Spear, Inc., supra, at 519-520).


Summaries of

Maldonado v. 69-70 Associates

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Mar 8, 1996
225 A.D.2d 1107 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)
Case details for

Maldonado v. 69-70 Associates

Case Details

Full title:JUAN MALDONADO et al., Appellants, v. 69-70 ASSOCIATES, Respondent

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

Date published: Mar 8, 1996

Citations

225 A.D.2d 1107 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)
639 N.Y.S.2d 199

Citing Cases

Woods v. Alexander [4th Dept 2000

As we noted in Woods v. Alexander ( supra), the duty of care owed by the owner of premises is based on the…

Woods v. Alexander

Defendants refused to comply with plaintiff's discovery demands, and Supreme Court denied plaintiff's motions…