Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Awilda CORTEZ, as Administratrix of the Goods, Chattels and Credits of Juan Cortez, Deceased, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DELMAR REALTY CO., INC., et al., Defendants-Respondents.
Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Kenneth L. Thompson, Jr., J.), entered October 11, 2005, which granted defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and denied plaintiff's cross motion to amend the complaint to add a cause of action for violation of Real Property Law § 231(2), unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Plaintiff's decedent, a tenant in defendants' building, was assaulted by an illegal subtenant of the building who was suspected of dealing drugs and ultimately evicted for nonpayment of rent. Dismissal of the complaint alleging that defendants' failure to provide proper security in the building proximately caused the decedent's injuries was proper since “a landlord is under no duty to safeguard a tenant against attack by another tenant ‘since it cannot be said that the landlord had the ability or a reasonable opportunity to control [the assailant]’ ” (Wright v. New York City Hous. Auth., 208 A.D.2d 327, 331, 624 N.Y.S.2d 144 [1995], quoting Blatt v. New York City Hous. Auth., 123 A.D.2d 591, 592, 506 N.Y.S.2d 877 [1986], lv. denied 69 N.Y.2d 603, 512 N.Y.S.2d 1026, 504 N.E.2d 396 [1987]; see Britt v. New York City Hous. Auth., 3 A.D.3d 514, 770 N.Y.S.2d 744 [2004], lv. denied 2 N.Y.3d 705, 780 N.Y.S.2d 311, 812 N.E.2d 1261 [2004] ).
The court also properly denied the cross motion to amend the complaint to add a claim alleging that defendants knowingly permitted drug activity on the premises in violation of Real Property Law § 231(2). The proposed claim is not viable in light of the lack of evidence that defendants were on notice of repeated criminal activity on the premises, or that the decedent's injuries were a foreseeable result of defendants' inaction in failing to remove the alleged drug dealers from the building (see Maria S. v. Willow Enters., 234 A.D.2d 177, 178-179, 651 N.Y.S.2d 486 [1996] ).
We have considered plaintiff's remaining arguments and find them unavailing.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: December 16, 2008
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)