PANDOZY v. L & S Stationery, Inc., Defendant.

Reset A A Font size: Print

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.

Raffaele Martini PANDOZY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Elliot KALMEN, a/k/a Elliot Kamen, Individually and Doing Business as Lid Fla Realty Co., et al., Defendants-Respondents, L & S Stationery, Inc., Defendant.

Decided: May 19, 1998

Before MILONAS, J.P., and ROSENBERGER, NARDELLI, WALLACH and RUBIN, JJ. Morrell I. Berkowitz, for plaintiff-appellant. Christopher Christofides, for defendants-respondents.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Lorraine Miller, J.), entered on or about March 25, 1997, which granted the motion of defendants Elliot Kalmen and Elliot Kalmen d/b/a Lid Fla Realty Co. for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against them, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

We agree with the IAS court that there are no factual issues as to whether defendant commercial landlord's alleged negligence was the proximate cause of water damage to plaintiff's premises, since plaintiff has failed to submit any evidence tending to prove that the vandal who damaged the sprinkler system in the premises above his was an intruder who gained access to the building by means of a broken front door lock (see, Rojas v. Lynn, 218 A.D.2d 611, 631 N.Y.S.2d 15, lv. denied 87 N.Y.2d 804, 639 N.Y.S.2d 782, 662 N.E.2d 1072;  Wright v. New York City Hous. Auth., 208 A.D.2d 327, 330, 624 N.Y.S.2d 144).   Nor, under the circumstances of this case, did the landlord's duty to take minimal security precautions to protect tenants from foreseeable harm (see, Miller v. State of New York, 62 N.Y.2d 506, 513, 478 N.Y.S.2d 829, 467 N.E.2d 493) encompass the landlord's provision of safeguards additional to those already in place.