MILLER v. NEW YORK CITY HOUSING AUTHORITY (2019)

Plaintiff alleges that defendant's failure to maintain a lock on the main front entrance of the premises where plaintiff lived resulted in someone entering the building and assaulting her.  Police later arrested a suspect for the crime, and his criminal case is still pending.  Defendant seeks to stay the proceedings in this civil action until the criminal case is concluded, asserting that criminal files are sealed during the pendency of the criminal action, and as a result it will not be able to defend itself.

The court properly concluded that a stay was not warranted as this action is a negligence action, where plaintiff alleges that defendant knew the front-door lock at the premises was broken yet allowed the condition to continue without repair, thus creating a hazard for building residents and for her specifically.  Such allegations are distinct from the question of whether the alleged assailant committed the crimes charged in the indictment, and defendant would not be prejudiced by proceeding with discovery.  Accordingly, the motion court properly exercised its discretion in denying the motion for a stay, as well as the motion to renew (see Fortress Credit Opportunities I LP v. Netschi, 59 A.D.3d 250, 873 N.Y.S.2d 562 [1st Dept. 2009];  Campbell v. New York City Tr. Auth., 32 A.D.3d 350, 352, 821 N.Y.S.2d 27 [1st Dept. 2006];  compare Britt v. International Bus Servs., 255 A.D.2d 143, 679 N.Y.S.2d 616 [1st Dept. 1998] ).