Clarke v. J.R.D. Management Corp.

Decision Date25 February 1983
PartiesAllen B. CLARKE, Plaintiff, v. J.R.D. MANAGEMENT CORP., Defendant.
CourtNew York City Court

Allan B. Clarke, pro se.

Kirk & O'Connell, Brooklyn, for defendant by Kevin M. Ryan, Brooklyn, of counsel.

GLORIA COHEN ARONIN, Judge.

Plaintiff brings this lawsuit to recover for property damage to his car and for the theft of tools from his car's trunk, which occurred when his car was broken into while in his garage. The action is brought against the landlord, from whom the plaintiff rents an apartment, as well as a space in the building's garage under a separate rental agreement.

There are two entrances to the garage, both of which require a key to be opened. All persons who rent space in the garage have keys. The entrance from the street is the entrance for cars, but must be opened by a key before the car may be driven into the garage. The other entrance is a door between the garage and the lobby of the building. The evidence also shows that the lobby of the building was kept locked and required a key.

Plaintiff testified that he saw his car at 1:00 a.m. on the day in question and that it was intact. Later in the morning, after the superintendent of the building advised the plaintiff that three cars in the garage had been broken into during the night, plaintiff went to the garage and found that his car was one of them.

The testimony revealed that the lock on the door between the garage and the building lobby had been loose and broken and finally missing fifteen days before the incident and that complaints about the lock had been made to the landlord on several occasions. There was no evidence as to how the perpetrators entered the garage.

Defendant correctly maintains that he is not an insurer of the tenant against the risk of intrusion or theft within the apartment building. He also argues that the landlord cannot be held liable for the intervening criminal act of a third party and that no proof of entry through the door alleged to be in disrepair and connecting the garage with the lobby had been proffered.

Although landlords are not insurers, they have been held to the duty of providing security to tenants against third-party criminal acts. Kline v. 1500 Massachusetts Ave. Apartment Corp., 439 F.2d 477 (D.C.Cir.1970). Liability has been premised on this duty as to foreseeable events, including a mugging in a lobby allegedly due to an improperly locked lobby door, Sherman v. Concourse Realty Corp., 47 A.D.2d 134, 365 N.Y.S.2d 239 (2d Dep't.1975); burglary of an apartment resulting from the negligent operation of a "lock-out service",Prager v. New York City Hous. Auth., 112 Misc.2d 1034, 447 N.Y.S.2d 1013 (1982); and a mugging in a parking lot allegedly due to improper maintenance of lighting by the landlord. Loeser v. Nathan Hale Gardens, Inc., 73 A.D.2d 187, 425 N.Y.S.2d 104 (1st Dep't.1980).

In addition, the following have been held liable for failure to protect against criminal acts of third parties: a hotel owner for failure to provide an adequate safe to store valuables, Goncalves v. Regent Int'l Hotel, Ltd. and Cecconi v. Regent Int'l Hotel, Ltd., 58 N.Y.2d 206, 460 N.Y.S.2d 750, 447 N.E.2d 693 No. 16, see N.Y.L.J. (2/18/83) at 1; the New York City Transit Authority for failing to prevent an assault on a subway passenger, Amoruso v. New York City Transit Authority, 12 A.D.2d 11, 207 N.Y.S.2d 855 (1st Dep't.1960); a public library for not protecting against an attack on a patron, Abbott v. New York Public Library, 263 App.Div. 314, 32 N.Y.S.2d 963 (1st Dep't.1942); and a bank for not providing security against a robbery to one of its customers within the bank, Stalzer v. European American Bank, 113 Misc.2d 77, 448 N.Y.S.2d 631 (1982).

Of course, having...

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 cases
  • Fontaine v. Ryan
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York
    • December 13, 1993
    ...tenants against third party criminal acts. See Nallan, 429 N.Y.S.2d at 613, 407 N.E.2d at 457; Clarke v. J.R.D. Management Corp., 118 Misc.2d 547, 461 N.Y.S.2d 168, 169 (Civ.Ct.1983). Such a duty attaches only if the risk of criminal conduct on the premises is foreseeable. Maysonet v. KFC, ......
  • Bailey v. Schaaf
    • United States
    • Michigan Supreme Court
    • July 30, 2013
    ...not owe this same duty? See Miller v. Whitworth, 193 W.Va. 262, 267–268, 455 S.E.2d 821 (1995) quoting Clarke v. JRD Mgt. Corp., 118 Misc.2d 547, 549, 461 N.Y.S.2d 168 (1983) (“The trend toward enlarging the duty of landlords and other private parties to provide security against criminal ac......
  • Leslie G. v. Perry & Associates
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • March 11, 1996
    ...as likely as not that he entered through persons he knew in the building and there is no causation); Clarke v. J.R.D. Management Corp. (1983) 118 Misc.2d 547, 549, 461 N.Y.S.2d 168, 170-171 (plaintiffs in negligent security actions against landlords must be held "stringently to their proof"......
  • Smith ex rel. Ross v. LAGOW CONST.
    • United States
    • South Dakota Supreme Court
    • March 13, 2002
    ...their premises." Miller v. Whitworth, 193 W.Va. 262, 455 S.E.2d 821, 826-27 (W.Va.1995) (quoting Clarke v. J.R.D. Management Corp., 118 Misc.2d 547, 461 N.Y.S.2d 168, 170 (N.Y.City Civ.Ct.1983)). [¶ 12.] On the whole, we recognize no general duty to protect one's fellow human beings from cr......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT