24-Hour Doorman Wasn't Needed

Tenant's guest sued landlord for negligence after she and her husband were attacked during a robbery in tenant's building elevator. The husband was shot and killed. Tenant's guest claimed that landlord didn't provide minimal precautions against foreseeable criminal activities because there wasn't a 24-hour doorman. Landlord asked the court to dismiss the case without a trial. The court ruled against landlord. Landlord appealed and won. Both the outside of the building and entrance vestibule were lighted, the entrance had an inner door lock, an intercom and buzzer, surveillance camera, and a doorman on duty from 4:00 p.m. to midnight daily. This showed that landlord had taken minimal precautions against crime. Tenant's guest submitted a security expert's statement that there had been crime in the ''immediate vicinity'' in the last six months, and that a 24-hour doorman would have been a ''reasonable security measure.'' This wasn't sufficient basis to raise an issue of fact as to whether landlord breached its duty.

Novikova v. Greenbriar Owners Corp.: NYLJ, p. 25, col. 2 (8/30/99) (App. Div.2 Dept.; Ritter, JP, Santucci, Luciano, Miller, JJ)