From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Mohmand v. Shorenstein Realty Investors Two

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Aug 4, 2003
307 A.D.2d 918 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)

Opinion

2002-08973

Argued June 12, 2003.

August 4, 2003.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Golar, J.), dated August 27, 2002, which granted the motion of the defendant Shorenstein Realty Investors Two, LP, for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it.

Bisogno Meyerson, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Elizabeth Mark Meyerson of counsel), for appellant.

Lester Schwab Katz Dwyer LLP, New York, N.Y. (John Sandercock and Steven B. Prystowsky of counsel), for respondent.

Before: SANDRA J. FEUERSTEIN, J.P., GABRIEL M. KRAUSMAN, GLORIA GOLDSTEIN, REINALDO E. RIVERA, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

"To recover damages from an owner of real property for injuries caused by the acts of criminals on the premises, a plaintiff must produce evidence indicating that the owner knew or should have known of the probability of conduct on the part of third persons which was likely to endanger the safety of those lawfully on the premises" ( Farrell v. Vega, 303 A.D.2d 716, 716-717; see Jacqueline S. v. City of New York, 81 N.Y.2d 288; Nallan v. Helmsley-Spear, Inc., 50 N.Y.2d 507). Contrary to the plaintiff's contention, evidence that a vehicle had once been stolen from the premises and a security guard's observation of individuals engaging in suspicious behavior several days before the plaintiff was assaulted, did not provide the defendant property owner with such notice of prior criminal activity as would make the assault foreseeable (see Acosta v. MEC Realty, 304 A.D.2d 778; Novikova v. Greenbriar Owners Corp., 258 A.D.2d 149; Durham v. Beaufort, 300 A.D.2d 435; Pascarelli v. LaGuardia Elmhurst Hotel Corp., 294 A.D.2d 343). Furthermore, there is no triable issue of fact as to whether the defendant property owner breached its duty to take minimal security precautions against foreseeable criminal acts (see James v. Jamie Towers Housing Co., 99 N.Y.2d 639; Scheir v. Lauenborg, 281 A.D.2d 530).

FEUERSTEIN, J.P., KRAUSMAN, GOLDSTEIN and RIVERA, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Mohmand v. Shorenstein Realty Investors Two

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Aug 4, 2003
307 A.D.2d 918 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
Case details for

Mohmand v. Shorenstein Realty Investors Two

Case Details

Full title:WAHEID MOHMAND, appellant, v. SHORENSTEIN REALTY INVESTORS TWO, LP…

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

Date published: Aug 4, 2003

Citations

307 A.D.2d 918 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
762 N.Y.S.2d 900

Citing Cases

Pietropaolo v. Western Suffolk Bd. of Coop. Educ. Servs.

The owner of a public establishment has no duty to protect patrons against unforeseeable and unexpected…

Pietropaolo v. W. Suffolk Bd. of Coop. Educ. Servs.

The owner of a public establishment has no duty to protect patrons against unforeseeable and unexpected…