Landlord May Have Duty to Monitor Elevator Camera

Facts: Tenant, who was 13 years old and lived in landlord’s building with her parents, was sexually assaulted in a building elevator. She later sued landlord for negligence, claiming that landlord was responsible for her injuries. Landlord had installed security cameras in various parts of the building, including the elevator, within a year after another crime occurred in the building. The cameras were connected to a monitor and recording device. In pretrial questioning, tenant said that the super told her that the elevator was monitored by the camera. Tenant claimed that the elevator camera wasn't working when she was attacked, and that landlord had assumed a duty to provide and monitor the security cameras. Landlord asked the court to dismiss the case without trial. Landlord admitted that there were security cameras installed throughout the building but claimed that it had no duty to provide monitored security cameras because the attack on tenants' daughter wasn't foreseeable.

Court: Landlord loses. A trial was needed to determine whether landlord voluntarily assumed a duty to monitor the screens of the security camera system and to maintain the system in working order, and whether landlord caused tenant's daughter to rely on landlord's surveillance system. Pretrial questioning showed that the front door lock worked properly and that someone else in the building buzzed the attacker in at the same time that tenant entered the building. So the attacker wasn’t an intruder who gained access due to improper security at the front door. But landlord had a duty of reasonable care to keep the building in a safe condition. There was a question of whether the attack was forseeable and why landlord installed the cameras.

Benitze v. Whitehall Apartments Co. LLC: NYLJ, 5/7/08, p. 30, col. 3 (Sup. Ct. NY; Stallman, J)