Opinion
January 31, 1994
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Roncallo, J.).
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs.
The plaintiff, an independent contractor employed by Orbeco Analytical Systems, Inc. (hereinafter Orbeco), exited Orbeco's business premises at about 9:15 P.M. on February 3, 1986, and allegedly was assaulted by an unknown assailant in the vicinity of the front entrance and parking lot of the building. In this action against the owners of the building, Michael Adamowicz and Mary Adamowicz, and Orbeco, the lessee of the building, the plaintiff contends that the defendants knew or should have known that the neighborhood in which the building was located was unsafe, and therefore were negligent in failing to implement heightened security measures to deter criminal conduct, including better exterior lighting in front of the building. The defendants Michael Adamowicz and Orbeco moved for summary judgment, and their motions were granted. We affirm.
The record contains little evidence of criminal activity prior to the date of the alleged assault from which the respondents could have reasonably foreseen the likelihood of criminal conduct on the premises. Since the plaintiff failed to establish that the respondents could have reasonably foreseen the alleged assault upon the plaintiff so as to give rise to a corresponding duty on their part to adopt heightened security measures, the plaintiff has failed to show that the alleged negligence "was a substantial cause of the events which produced the injury" (Derdiarian v Felix Contr. Corp., 51 N.Y.2d 308, 315; see, Iannelli v. Powers, 114 A.D.2d 157, 162-163). Under these circumstances, summary judgment was properly granted (see, Zuckerman v. City of New York, 49 N.Y.2d 557; Santiago v. New York City Hous. Auth., 101 A.D.2d 735, affd 63 N.Y.2d 761).
We have reviewed the plaintiff's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Bracken, J.P., Balletta, Copertino and Santucci, JJ., concur.