Opinion
Submitted February 9, 2001.
March 19, 2001.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Held, J.), dated October 18, 2000, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
Smith Mazure Director Wilkins Young Yagerman Tarallo, P.C., New York, N.Y. (Haydn J. Brill of counsel), for appellant.
Vincent J. Balzano, New York, N.Y., for respondent.
Before: CORNELIUS J. O'BRIEN, J.P., FRED T. SANTUCCI, ANITA R. FLORIO, ROBERT W. SCHMIDT, JJ.
DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.
"To recover damages from an owner of real property for injuries caused by criminals acts on the premises, a plaintiff must produce evidence indicating that the owner knew or should have known of the probability of criminal conduct by third persons that was likely to endanger the safety of those lawfully on the premises" (Davila v. 1750 Realty Assocs., 268 A.D.2d 553; see, Jacqueline S. v. City of New York, 81 N.Y.2d 288; Nallan v. Helmsley-Spear, Inc., 50 N.Y.2d 507).
The criminal assault upon the plaintiff was not foreseeable as a matter of law, as the criminal conduct was not "reasonably predictable based on the prior occurrence of the same or similar criminal activity at a location sufficiently proximate to the subject location" (Novikova v. Greenbriar Owners Corp., 258 A.D.2d 149, 153; see, Ospina v. City of New York, 214 A.D.2d 551; Cayo v. Supermarkets Gen. Corp., 247 A.D.2d 421; Tarter v. Schildkraut, 151 A.D.2d 414). Moreover, the defendant's alleged acts or omissions were not a proximate cause of the plaintiff's injuries but merely furnished the condition for the event's occurrence (see, Moss v. New York Tel. Co., 196 A.D.2d 492; Rozhik v. 1600 Ocean Parkway Assocs., 208 A.D.2d 913). Accordingly, the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint should have been granted.