New York's Highest Court Finds Jury Trials Needed to Decide if NYCHA Responsible for Tenant Killings

New York's highest court issued a combined ruling on two cases where tenants were killed in apartment buildings by intruders intent on revenge. In Scurry v. NYCHA, the estate of tenant Bridget Crushshon sued NYCHA after tenant's ex-boyfriend, who lived in a neighboring building, killed her in the hallway of her Brooklyn building after stalking her. The assailant choked Crushshon and set her and himself on fire, killing them both in 2007. Tenant's son, who tried to intervene, also was seriously injured. The Appellate Division, Second Dept. had denied NYCHA's request for summary judgment after NYCHA sought dismissal of the case against it without trial.

In Estate of Murphy v. NYCHA, the Appellate Division, First Dept. had ruled that NYCHA was not responsible for the point-blank range shooting and killing of a tenant in a gang-related slaying in 2011. In the case, the appeals court had found that the attackers were intent on gaining access to the building and were bent on revenge, so an unlocked door could not have been a proximate cause of the harm. But attorneys for Crushshon pointed out that functional door locks might have saved her life. 

In both cases, in unanimous decisions by the Court of Appeals, the cases were sent back to the lower courts for jury trials. In both cases involving targeted killings,  NYCHA had argued that it didn't matter if there were broken exterior door locks at the buildings, given the attackers' intents.  The Court of Appeals ruled that landlords in New York have a common-law duty to take minimal precautions to protect tenants from foreseeable harm, including a third party's foreseeable criminal conduct. So a jury should decide the cases based on the facts, rather than the court deciding the cases as a matter of law.

Scurry v. NYCHA/Estate of Murphy v. NYCHA: 2023 NY Slip Op 02752 (Ct. App.; 5/23/23; Wilson, CJ