From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Vaughan v. Bank of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Aug 5, 1996
230 A.D.2d 731 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)

Summary

In Vaughan v. Bank of N.Y. (230 A.D.2d 731), the Court held that where there was only one instance of a prior robbery at the banks night depository in the two-year period before the incident, the risk of robbery was not foreseeable.

Summary of this case from Williams v. Citibank

Opinion

August 5, 1996


In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Doyle, J.), dated July 10, 1995 which granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff, an employee of a shoe store, was depositing the day's receipts into a night depository at the defendant Bank of New York, when she was assaulted and robbed. She brought this action to recover damages for personal injuries. After the incident, the bank proposed trimming the bushes where the plaintiff's assailants hid before the attack and providing better lighting in the area of the depository. The plaintiff submitted evidence of only one other such robbery at the depository site in the two years prior to the robbery.

The Supreme Court properly found that the plaintiff had not alleged facts sufficient to prove that the defendant had notice of criminal activity in the area in which the plaintiff was attacked, and that, therefore, the risk of robbery was not foreseeable and there was no duty of care on the part of the defendant toward the plaintiff (see, Nallan v Helmsley-Spear, Inc., 50 N.Y.2d 507; Gill v New York City Hous. Auth., 130 A.D.2d 256; Ianelli v Powers, 114 A.D.2d 157). Moreover, evidence of post-incident remedial measures, such as trimming the hedges surrounding the night depository or providing better lighting, does not, contrary to the plaintiff's contention, constitute an admission of negligence (see, Niemann v Luca, 214 A.D.2d 658). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment. Bracken, J.P., Santucci, Goldstein and McGinity, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Vaughan v. Bank of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Aug 5, 1996
230 A.D.2d 731 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)

In Vaughan v. Bank of N.Y. (230 A.D.2d 731), the Court held that where there was only one instance of a prior robbery at the banks night depository in the two-year period before the incident, the risk of robbery was not foreseeable.

Summary of this case from Williams v. Citibank
Case details for

Vaughan v. Bank of New York

Case Details

Full title:THERESA VAUGHAN, Appellant, v. BANK OF NEW YORK, Respondent

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

Date published: Aug 5, 1996

Citations

230 A.D.2d 731 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)
646 N.Y.S.2d 49

Citing Cases

Williams v. Citibank

(Dyer v. Norstar Bank, 186 A.D.2d 1083, supra, quoting Ventricelli v. Kinney Sys. Rent A Car, 45 N.Y.2d 950,…

Takhalova v. Apple Bancorp., Inc.

As a result, a Defendant must show a lack of notice of criminal activity in order to establish that a risk of…