Opinion
May 5, 1997
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Nastasi, J.).
Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.
After completing her shopping at the defendant's Port Chester store at approximately 12:30 A.M. on March 18, 1993, the plaintiff was raped inside her van by an assailant armed with a knife. The plaintiff alleges that the defendant failed to provide adequate security and that as a consequence she was subjected to the rape.
Whether knowledge of prior criminal activities is sufficient to make an injury to a plaintiff foreseeable to an owner or possessor of land "must depend on the location, nature and extent of those previous criminal activities and their similarity, proximity or other relationship to the crime in question" ( Jacqueline S. v. City of New York, 81 N.Y.2d 288, 295).
The incidents reflected in a police department record, which essentially concern acts against property, did not give notice that the rape of the plaintiff was foreseeable ( see, Karp v. Saks Fifth Ave., 225 A.D.2d 1014; cf., Jacqueline S. v. City of New York, supra; Miller v. State of New York, 62 N.Y.2d 506; Nallan v. Helmsley-Spear, Inc., 50 N.Y.2d 507; Doe v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 234 A.D.2d 74).
Further, there is no basis for concluding that the defendant had any knowledge of a robbery of a friend of the plaintiff, Minnie White, at the premises, nor are the additional hearsay reports of crimes at the premises by Minnie White and the plaintiff sufficient to establish any breach of duty by the defendant ( see, Maria S. v. Willows Enters., 234 A.D.2d 177).
Rosenblatt, J.P., Thompson, Altman and Luciano, JJ., concur.