From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Rozhik v. 1600 Ocean Parkway Associates

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 31, 1994
208 A.D.2d 913 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)

Opinion

October 31, 1994

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Vaccaro, J.).


Ordered that the appeal from the order is dismissed; and it is further,

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed; and it is further,

Ordered that the defendants are awarded one bill of costs.

The appeal from the intermediate order must be dismissed because the right of direct appeal therefrom terminated with the entry of judgment in the action (see, Matter of Aho, 39 N.Y.2d 241, 248). The issues raised on appeal from the order are brought up for review and have been considered on the appeal from the judgment (CPLR 5501 [a] [1]).

The plaintiff Emma Rozhik seeks to recover damages for personal injuries arising out of a sexual assault committed by an unapprehended third party in the apartment building owned and managed by the defendants. Her husband, the plaintiff Khaim Rozhik, seeks derivative damages for loss of services. At the time of the assault, the plaintiffs were residents of the defendants' building.

The Supreme Court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment. We affirm. The plaintiffs' submissions in opposition to the defendants' motion tended only to establish that there had been prior incidents of criminal activity in the Brooklyn neighborhood surrounding the defendants' building. Those submissions made only cursory reference to prior criminal acts on the premises over which the defendants exercised control and were thus patently insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the defendants had such notice of prior criminal activity so as to make the assault upon Emma Rozhik foreseeable (see, Jacqueline S. v. City of New York, 81 N.Y.2d 288; Nallan v Helmsley-Spear, Inc., 50 N.Y.2d 507; Grignoli v. New York City Hous. Auth., 196 A.D.2d 525). Additionally, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue as to whether any of the defendants' acts were a proximate cause of the assault (see, Waters v. New York City Hous. Auth., 69 N.Y.2d 225; Moss v. New York Tel. Co., 196 A.D.2d 492; cf., Clinger v. New York City Tr. Auth., 201 A.D.2d 236). O'Brien, J.P., Pizzuto, Altman and Hart, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Rozhik v. 1600 Ocean Parkway Associates

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 31, 1994
208 A.D.2d 913 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)
Case details for

Rozhik v. 1600 Ocean Parkway Associates

Case Details

Full title:EMMA ROZHIK et al., Appellants, v. 1600 OCEAN PARKWAY ASSOCIATES et al.…

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

Date published: Oct 31, 1994

Citations

208 A.D.2d 913 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)
617 N.Y.S.2d 535

Citing Cases

Williams v. Citibank

Even evidence of prior criminal activity in the general neighborhood will not satisfy a plaintiff's burden.…

Todorovich v. Columbia University

Thus, for example, in Levine v. Fifth Hous. Co. ( 242 A.D.2d 564), a case in which it was alleged that the…