From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Rodriguez v. New York City Housing Authority

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Dec 28, 1995
87 N.Y.2d 887 (N.Y. 1995)

Opinion

Decided December 28, 1995

Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department, Diane A. Lebedeff, J.

Windels, Marx, Davies Ives, New York City (Bevan M. Watt, Raymond T. Munsell, Thomas J. Mulligan and Dominic P. Morandi of counsel), for appellant.

Thomas A. Stickel, New York City, for respondent.


MEMORANDUM.

The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed, with costs, the certified question answered in the negative, and defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint granted.

Plaintiff was robbed and beaten in a nighttime mugging by several unidentified perpetrators as he walked across an open area of a parking lot in defendant's apartment complex. The attackers covered plaintiff's head with a blanket and beat him about the legs and face. Plaintiff alleged that the proximate cause of his injuries was that the only light in the parking lot was not functioning.

Supreme Court denied defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, and the Appellate Division affirmed, by a 3-to-2 vote. That Court then granted leave to appeal to this Court on a certified question.

We conclude that on the record of this case, no genuine issues of fact concerning the malfunctioning light as the proximate cause of plaintiff's injuries were proffered in response to defendant's motion to dismiss. An examination of plaintiff's opposition motion papers reveals no evidentiary proof "in admissible form," other than "`"[m]ere conclusions, expressions of hope or unsubstantiated allegations or assertions,"'" that the alleged insufficient lighting in the parking lot may have contributed to the criminal incident leading to plaintiff's injuries ( Ascher v Garafolo Elec. Co., 113 A.D.2d 728, 731 [quoting Krupp v Aetna Life Cas. Co., 103 A.D.2d 252, 262 (citations omitted)], affd for reasons stated below 67 N.Y.2d 637).

Chief Judge KAYE and Judges SIMONS, TITONE, BELLACOSA, SMITH, LEVINE and CIPARICK concur in memorandum.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.4 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 N.Y.CRR 500.4), order reversed, etc.


Summaries of

Rodriguez v. New York City Housing Authority

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Dec 28, 1995
87 N.Y.2d 887 (N.Y. 1995)
Case details for

Rodriguez v. New York City Housing Authority

Case Details

Full title:DANIEL RODRIGUEZ, Respondent, v. NEW YORK CITY HOUSING AUTHORITY, Appellant

Court:Court of Appeals of the State of New York

Date published: Dec 28, 1995

Citations

87 N.Y.2d 887 (N.Y. 1995)
639 N.Y.S.2d 1008
663 N.E.2d 320

Citing Cases

Williams v. New York City Housing Authority

NYCHA, as a landlord, only has an obligation to take minimal precautions to protect its tenants from harm by…

Yingrui Shang v. 231 W 15 Realty LLC

Plaintiff's allegations that 142 moved the barricades to allow occupants of 142 to park their cars is simply…