Trial Required on Inadequate Security Claim

May 31, 1999

LVT Number: 13259

Tenants sued landlord for negligence after they were attacked in their apartment by two intruders. Landlord claimed it wasn't responsible. The court ruled against tenants without a trial, and tenants appealed. The appeals court ruled for tenants and sent the case back for a trial. The building super had testified in pretrial questioning that there were times when the front security door was broken. There was also a history of criminal activity in the building, and the attacker had indicated that there wasn't a lock on the front door to the building.

Tenants sued landlord for negligence after they were attacked in their apartment by two intruders. Landlord claimed it wasn't responsible. The court ruled against tenants without a trial, and tenants appealed. The appeals court ruled for tenants and sent the case back for a trial. The building super had testified in pretrial questioning that there were times when the front security door was broken. There was also a history of criminal activity in the building, and the attacker had indicated that there wasn't a lock on the front door to the building. All of this information raised questions as to whether the security door was negligently maintained. A trial was needed to determine the facts.

De Haza v. 2639 Jerome Ave. Assocs.: NYLJ, p. 26, col. 2 (5/26/99) (App. T. 1 Dept.; Parness, PJ, McCooe, Freedman, JJ)

Topics

More like this