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.
Jose ROLDAN, Plaintiff–Respondent, v. NEW YORK CITY HOUSING AUTHORITY, Defendant–Appellant,
Shawn Lawrence, Defendant. New York City Housing Authority, Third–Party Plaintiff–Appellant, v. Shawn Lawrence, Third–Party Defendant.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Robert D. Kalish, J.), entered February 26, 2018, which denied the motion of defendant New York City Housing Authority (N.Y.CHA) for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims as against it, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion granted. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly.
Dismissal of the complaint as against NYCHA is warranted in this action where plaintiff alleges that he was injured when, while visiting his wife in NYCHA's building, he was shot by defendant Lawrence, who was able to enter the building because of a broken lock on the building's front door. The record establishes that NYCHA lacked notice of a broken lock inasmuch as NYCHA submitted evidence showing that although the front door lock had been repaired a number of times in the months leading up to the incident, NYCHA's supervisor of caretakers testified that the lock was working on the morning of the incident, and for almost a full week beforehand (see Ramirez v. BB & BB Mgt. Corp., 115 A.D.3d 555, 982 N.Y.S.2d 310 [1st Dept. 2014] ).
The evidence also fails to show that the alleged assailant was an unauthorized intruder, rather than an invited guest (see Hierro v. New York City Hous. Auth., 123 A.D.3d 508, 998 N.Y.S.2d 365 [1st Dept. 2014]; Rivera v. New York City Hous. Auth., 239 A.D.2d 114, 657 N.Y.S.2d 32 [1st Dept. 1997] ). The alleged assailant testified that he lived across from the subject building, that he had numerous family members and friends who lived in the building, and that he was a frequent visitor of the building. Furthermore, plaintiff admitted that he was the victim of a targeted attack by the alleged assailant, which severed the causal nexus between NYCHA's alleged negligence and plaintiff's injuries (see Buckeridge v. Broadie, 5 A.D.3d 298, 300–301, 774 N.Y.S.2d 132 [1st Dept. 2004]; Cerda v. 2962 Decatur Ave. Owners Corp., 306 A.D.2d 169, 761 N.Y.S.2d 220 [1st Dept. 2003] ).
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.
Docket No: 8857
Decided: April 02, 2019
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)