Opinion
427 Index No. 153148/15 Case No. 2022–04197
06-08-2023
Emily MALDONADO et al., Plaintiffs–Respondents, v. RUPPERT HOUSING COMPANY, INC., et al., Defendants–Appellants.
Mauro Lilling Naparty LLP, Woodbury (Seth M. Weinberg of counsel), for appellants. Brandon J. Broderick, Attorneys at Law, New York (Jason A. Richman of counsel), for respondents.
Mauro Lilling Naparty LLP, Woodbury (Seth M. Weinberg of counsel), for appellants.
Brandon J. Broderick, Attorneys at Law, New York (Jason A. Richman of counsel), for respondents.
Webber, J.P., Gonza´lez, Rodriguez, Pitt–Burke, JJ.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Frank Nervo, J.), entered August 22, 2022, which, to the extent appealed from, denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint against them, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Plaintiff Steven Torres alleges that he was injured by an attack in his girlfriend's apartment in a building owned and managed by defendants. The record demonstrates that plaintiff and his girlfriend had informed the building that the assailant had threatened them, and that he should not be allowed in the building without the police being present. Nevertheless, building employees allowed the assailant into the building and one of the employees escorted the assailant to plaintiff's apartment and left him unattended. When plaintiff subsequently opened the apartment door, he was attacked. Under the circumstances, questions of fact exist as to whether a proximate cause of plaintiff's injuries was defendants’ employees permitting the assailant entry to the building, and/or leaving the assailant alone at the apartment door without informing plaintiff (see Burgos v. Aqueduct Realty Corp., 92 N.Y.2d 544, 550, 684 N.Y.S.2d 139, 706 N.E.2d 1163 [1998] ) or whether plaintiff's opening of the apartment door to the assailant was an intervening cause of injury (see Mason v. U.E.S.S. Leasing Corp., 274 A.D.2d 79, 81–82, 712 N.Y.S.2d 465 [1st Dept. 2000], affd 96 N.Y.2d 875, 730 N.Y.S.2d 770, 756 N.E.2d 58 [2001] ).
We have considered defendants’ remaining arguments and find them unavailing.