1 No. 107
Yolanda Mason,
Respondent,
v.
U.E.S.S. Leasing Corporation, et al.,
Appellants. (and a third-party action.)
_________________________________________________________________
2001 NY Int. 82
July 2, 2001
This memorandum is uncorrected and subject to revision before
publication in the New York Reports.
Andrew Zajac, for appellants U.E.S.S. Leasing et al.
Steven L. Sonkin, for appellant Mid-City Security.
James William Hubert, for respondent.
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
MEMORANDUM:
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.
The certified question should be answered in the affirmative, but on
the narrower grounds stated in the Memorandum.
Plaintiff resided in a Queens apartment building that was part of a
larger complex known as Lefrak City. Defendant U.E.S.S. Leasing
Corporation and Builders and Realtors Corporation, Inc. owned the
complex, and defendant Mid-City Security Service, Inc. provided
security for the premises. On July 11, 1992, shortly after 7:00 a.m.,
plaintiff was awakened by a phone call from her live-in boyfriend who
told her that he would be upstairs in five minutes. Shortly
thereafter, the apartment doorbell rang and plaintiff, thinking it was
her boyfriend, opened the door without first looking through the
peephole or asking who it was. Third-party defendant Lawrence Toole
forced his way in and dragged plaintiff to the bedroom where he beat,
raped and sodomized her at knifepoint.
Plaintiff, in her first cause of action, alleges that defendants
negligently allowed Toole to enter the building so as to gain access
to her apartment. The second cause of action charges that defendant
Mid-City negligently performed its security contract, and the third
cause of action asserts that defendants violated RPL § 235-b and
breached the implied warranty of habitability by failing to properly
SNIPPETS:
This memorandum is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the New York
James William Hubert, for respondent.
The certified question should be answered in the affirmative, but on the narrower grounds
Plaintiff resided in a Queens apartment building that was part of a larger complex known as
Leasing Corporation and Builders and Realtors Corporation, Inc. owned the complex, and
Shortly thereafter, the apartment doorbell rang and plaintiff, thinking it was her boyfriend,
Plaintiff, in her first cause of action, alleges that defendants negligently allowed Toole to
Supreme Court granted defendants' motions for summary judgment and dismissed the complaint.
The court reasoned that plaintiff's deposition testimony established that defendants had
A divided Appellate Division reversed, concluding that a question of fact existed as to
The Appellate Division majority further concluded that there was an issue of fact as to
The Appellate Division certified to this Court the question of whether it properly reversed
Landlords have a common-law duty to take minimal precautions to protect tenants from
"Whether knowledge of criminal activities occurring at various points within a unified
On a motion for summary judgment, a plaintiff need only raise a triable issue of fact
|
