Jury to Decide if Assailant Was Intruder

Facts: Tenant was beaten and robbed by two attackers who were waiting in the building's hallway when she came out of her apartment. She didn't know the attackers but claimed that she knew all the building's tenants and that they weren't tenants. Tenant also claimed that she had repeatedly complained to the building's super and manager about security, since there had been three robberies in the building in recent years and none of the building's entrances had functioning locks. Landlord asked the court to dismiss the case without a trial since tenant couldn't state with absolute certainty that the attackers hadn't been invited into the building by another tenant. The court ruled against landlord, but the appeals court reversed the ruling and dismissed the case. Tenant was then given permission to appeal to the state's highest court.Court: Tenant wins. Landlord has a duty to protect tenants from foreseeable harm, including an outsider's foreseeable criminal conduct. However, tenant can recover damages from landlord only by proving that landlord's negligence was the cause of the injury. Courts have traditionally dismissed cases without trials if tenants couldn't prove that the attack- ers were intruders. But tenants shouldn't be barred automatically from pursuing their negligence claims when they can't identify the attackers. Tenant should be allowed to prove at a trial either that her attacker was an intruder or that it's more likely than not that the attacker was an intruder. The court sent the case back for a trial.

Burgos v. NYCHA: NYLJ, p. 26, col. 4 (11/25/98) (Ct. App. NY; Kaye, CJ, Bellacoas, Smith, Levine, Ciparick, Wesley, JJ)