From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Plocas v. Best Western Hotel

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 23, 2002
300 A.D.2d 556 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)

Opinion

2002-01269

November 14, 2002.

December 23, 2002.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants separately appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Phelan, J.), entered January 4, 2002, which denied their respective motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against them.

Greenfield Reilly (Carol R. Finocchio and Marie Hodukavich, New York, N.Y., of counsel), for appellant HKKW Corp., s/h/a Best Western Hotel Convention Center.

Morenus, Cardoza Conway, Melville, N.Y. (Eileen M. Baumgartner of counsel), for appellant Stratford Business Corp., s/h/a Stratford Management.

Berns Castro, New York, N.Y. (Lloyd M. Berns and Craig Phemister of counsel), for respondent.

Before: MYRIAM J. ALTMAN, J.P., NANCY E. SMITH, HOWARD MILLER, WILLIAM F. MASTRO, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law, with one bill of costs, the motions are granted, and the complaint is dismissed.

The plaintiff was robbed and assaulted in a parking garage jointly operated by the defendants. An owner or possessor of real property is obligated to take reasonable precautionary measures to minimize the risks of criminal acts and to make the premises safe for visitors (see Nallan v. Helmsley-Spear, Inc., 50 N.Y.2d 507, 519-521; Alonso v. Branchinelli, 277 A.D.2d 408; Novikova v. Greenbriar Owners Corp., 258 A.D.2d 149; Dillman v. Bohemian Citizens Benevolent Socy., 227 A.D.2d 434, 435). Contrary to the plaintiff's contention, his submission in opposition to the motions, after the defendants established their prima facie entitlement to summary judgment, failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the defendants knew of previous criminal activity at the location which would make the robbery and assault foreseeable, and whether the security provided by the defendants was inadequate (see Erlich v. Greenacre Assocs., 295 A.D.2d 558, lv denied 99 N.Y.2d 501; Pascarelli v. LaGuardia Elmhurst Hotel Corp., 294 A.D.2d 343, 344; see also Burgos v. Aqueduct Realty Corp., 92 N.Y.2d 544; Tancredi v. Helmsley-Spear, Inc., 273 A.D.2d 223, 224; cf. James v. Jamie Towers Hous. Co., 294 A.D.2d 268, lv denied 98 N.Y.2d 762).

ALTMAN, J.P., SMITH, H. MILLER and MASTRO, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Plocas v. Best Western Hotel

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 23, 2002
300 A.D.2d 556 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)
Case details for

Plocas v. Best Western Hotel

Case Details

Full title:CAMERON PLOCAS, respondent, v. BEST WESTERN HOTEL CONVENTION CENTER, ET…

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

Date published: Dec 23, 2002

Citations

300 A.D.2d 556 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)
751 N.Y.S.2d 878