From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Urich v. 765 Riverside LLC

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Feb 3, 2015
125 A.D.3d 430 (N.Y. App. Div. 2015)

Opinion

02-03-2015

Claire URICH, Plaintiff–Respondent, v. 765 Riverside LLC, et al., Defendants–Appellants. [And a Third–Party Action].

Carol R. Finocchio, New York, for appellants. Pollack, Pollack, Isaac & DeCicco, New York (Brian J. Isaac of counsel), for respondent.


Carol R. Finocchio, New York, for appellants.

Pollack, Pollack, Isaac & DeCicco, New York (Brian J. Isaac of counsel), for respondent.

Opinion Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Cynthia S. Kern, J.), entered June 25, 2014, which denied defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.In opposition to defendants' prima facie showing that the locks on the entrances to the building were working on the date of the criminal attack on plaintiff, plaintiff raised an issue of fact as to whether her assailant gained entry through a side entrance (see Burgos v. Aqueduct Realty Corp., 92 N.Y.2d 544, 684 N.Y.S.2d 139, 706 N.E.2d 1163 [1998] ). She submitted tenants' affidavits saying that there was a recurring problem with the side door to the building, i.e., that it did not close completely, and that, on or about the date of the assault, the lock on that door “would spin so that any key could open [it].” Moreover, plaintiff presented evidence raising an issue of fact as to the foreseeability of the attack (see Jacqueline S. v. City of New York, 81 N.Y.2d 288, 293–294, 598 N.Y.S.2d 160, 614 N.E.2d 723 [1993] ). She submitted a letter sent to defendant building manager by a group of tenants 18 months before the assault on her complaining of a break-in that resulted in destruction of property, intruders smoking marijuana on the roof, the service elevator being used for “drug drops,” and the building becoming a target for people “to easily enter ..., conduct illegal activities and escape without apprehension,” and requesting, inter alia, that the building's locks be replaced rather than waiting “for tragedy to strike.”

We have considered defendants' remaining contentions and find them unavailing.

FRIEDMAN, J.P., ANDRIAS, SAXE, RICHTER, GISCHE, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Urich v. 765 Riverside LLC

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Feb 3, 2015
125 A.D.3d 430 (N.Y. App. Div. 2015)
Case details for

Urich v. 765 Riverside LLC

Case Details

Full title:Claire URICH, Plaintiff–Respondent, v. 765 Riverside LLC, et al.…

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.

Date published: Feb 3, 2015

Citations

125 A.D.3d 430 (N.Y. App. Div. 2015)
2015 N.Y. Slip Op. 826
998 N.Y.S.2d 889

Citing Cases

Roldan v. N.Y.C. Hous. Auth.

This raises a material issue of fact as to whether Defendant NYCHA was on notice that its front door was…