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.
Maria FLORES, Administratrix of the Estate of Christopher Hernandez, et al., Plaintiffs, Doris Silva, Administratrix of the Estate of Annette Medina, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. DEARBORNE MANAGEMENT, INC., et al., Defendants-Appellants, John Keely, et al., Defendants. [And a Third-Party Action].
Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Alan J. Saks, J.), entered on or about April 11, 2003, which, after a jury trial in which defendants-appellants were found 38% liable, awarded plaintiff Doris Silva as Administratrix of the Estate of Annette Medina emotional suffering damages in the amount of $4.2 million, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, defendants' motion for a directed verdict granted, and the complaint dismissed. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly.
Plaintiff Silva's decedent, Annette Medina, was one of six people who were shot execution style in the head in a Bronx building owned and operated by defendants. While there were disputed facts at trial regarding defendants' negligence in providing building security, the evidence also clearly established that the murders were a result of a planned hostage taking and armed robbery, incident to the intended murder of the specific target in his apartment. In particular, the perpetrators, who were convicted of murder in the second degree (see e.g. People v. Ramos, 258 A.D.2d 357, 685 N.Y.S.2d 241 [1999]; People v. Casellas, 227 A.D.2d 343, 643 N.Y.S.2d 76 [1996], lv. denied 88 N.Y.2d 981, 649 N.Y.S.2d 388, 672 N.E.2d 614 [1996] ), planned in advance to seize a particular woman to gain entry to an apartment, execute one of the residents of that apartment, and leave with any money they could find. Upon arrival at the building, the masked perpetrators took four captives at gunpoint, entered the decedent's apartment, required their captives and two inhabitants to lie on the floor, face down, executed the six and left with any money they found. At a subsequent meeting, the perpetrators divided the proceeds of their crime spree. Such intentional conduct was, as a matter of law, the sole proximate cause of the decedent's death (see Cerda v. 2962 Decatur Ave. Owners Corp., 306 A.D.2d 169, 761 N.Y.S.2d 220 [2003]; Rivera v. New York City Hous. Auth., 239 A.D.2d 114, 657 N.Y.S.2d 32 [1997]; Harris v. New York City Hous. Auth., 211 A.D.2d 616, 617, 621 N.Y.S.2d 105 [1995] ).
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 01, 2005
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)