Summary
In Roldan, which also involved a broken lock in a NYCHA building, this Court dismissed the complaint on the basis that the plaintiff could not establish that the assailant was an unauthorized intruder, as opposed to an invited guest.
Summary of this case from Estate of Tayshana Murphy By Its Adm'x v. N.Y.C. Hous. Auth.Opinion
8857 Index 159722/13
04-02-2019
Jose ROLDAN, Plaintiff–Respondent, v. NEW YORK CITY HOUSING AUTHORITY, Defendant–Appellant, Shawn Lawrence, Defendant. New York City Housing Authority, Third–Party Plaintiff–Appellant, v. Shawn Lawrence, Third–Party Defendant.
Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker LLP, New York (Patrick J. Lawless of counsel), for appellant. Heller, Horowitz & Feit, P.C., New York (Stuart A. Blander of counsel), for respondent.
Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker LLP, New York (Patrick J. Lawless of counsel), for appellant.
Heller, Horowitz & Feit, P.C., New York (Stuart A. Blander of counsel), for respondent.
Sweeny, J.P., Manzanet–Daniels, Kern, Singh, JJ.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Robert D. Kalish, J.), entered February 26, 2018, which denied the motion of defendant New York City Housing Authority (N.Y.CHA) for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims as against it, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion granted. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly.
Dismissal of the complaint as against NYCHA is warranted in this action where plaintiff alleges that he was injured when, while visiting his wife in NYCHA's building, he was shot by defendant Lawrence, who was able to enter the building because of a broken lock on the building's front door. The record establishes that NYCHA lacked notice of a broken lock inasmuch as NYCHA submitted evidence showing that although the front door lock had been repaired a number of times in the months leading up to the incident, NYCHA's supervisor of caretakers testified that the lock was working on the morning of the incident, and for almost a full week beforehand (see Ramirez v. BB & BB Mgt. Corp., 115 A.D.3d 555, 982 N.Y.S.2d 310 [1st Dept. 2014] ).
The evidence also fails to show that the alleged assailant was an unauthorized intruder, rather than an invited guest (see Hierro v. New York City Hous. Auth., 123 A.D.3d 508, 998 N.Y.S.2d 365 [1st Dept. 2014] ; Rivera v. New York City Hous. Auth., 239 A.D.2d 114, 657 N.Y.S.2d 32 [1st Dept. 1997] ). The alleged assailant testified that he lived across from the subject building, that he had numerous family members and friends who lived in the building, and that he was a frequent visitor of the building. Furthermore, plaintiff admitted that he was the victim of a targeted attack by the alleged assailant, which severed the causal nexus between NYCHA's alleged negligence and plaintiff's injuries (see Buckeridge v. Broadie, 5 A.D.3d 298, 300–301, 774 N.Y.S.2d 132 [1st Dept. 2004] ; Cerda v. 2962 Decatur Ave. Owners Corp., 306 A.D.2d 169, 761 N.Y.S.2d 220 [1st Dept. 2003] ).