Opinion
December 22, 1997
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Vinik, J.).
Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, that branch of the defendants' motion for summary judgment which was to dismiss the first cause of action insofar as asserted against the New York City Housing Authority is granted, and the first cause of action is dismissed against that defendant.
The plaintiff was assaulted by an unidentified assailant in the lobby of her apartment building which was owned and operated by the defendant New York City Housing Authority. Inasmuch as the plaintiff failed to submit proof as to how the assailant gained access to the building, or proof that the assailant was not an invitee, she has failed to raise a factual issue as to whether the absence of operating locks on the entrance doors was a proximate cause of her injuries ( see, e.g, Shinn v. Lefrak Org., 239 A.D.2d 335; Folks v. New York City Hous. Auth., 227 A.D.2d 520; Perry v. New York City Hous. Auth., 222 A.D.2d 567; Gleaton v. New York City Hous. Auth., 221 A.D.2d 504; Jimenez v. 470 Audubon Ave. Corp., 239 A.D.2d 106; Borrero v. New York City Hous. Auth., 236 A.D.2d 262, lv granted 91 N.Y.2d 801).
Bracken, J. P., Copertino, Thompson and Luciano, JJ., concur.