Folks v. New York City Housing Authority
| Decision Date | 20 May 1996 |
| Citation | 643 N.Y.S.2d 179,227 A.D.2d 520 |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
| Parties | Daryl FOLKS, Respondent, v. NEW YORK CITY HOUSING AUTHORITY, Appellant. |
Windels, Marx, Davies & Ives, New York City (Thomas J. Mulligan and Joseph G. Colbert of counsel; Marnie B. Naiburg, on the brief), for appellant.
Mirman, Markovits & Landau, P.C., New York City (Ephrem Wertenteil, of counsel), for respondent.
Before RITTER, J.P., and PIZZUTO, SANTUCCI and KRAUSMAN, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Shaw, J.), dated January 10, 1995, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the defendant's motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.
The plaintiff was a resident of a three-story apartment building located in the Bruekelen Housing Project, which is owned and operated by the defendant. On April 24, 1990, two unidentified assailants fired four shots through the closed door of the plaintiff's apartment striking him in the leg. There were no arrests made and there is no evidence in the record indicating the identity of the assailants or how they gained access to the building. Thereafter, the plaintiff commenced this action against the defendant alleging that his injuries were due solely to its negligence in failing to provide adequate security measures.
The defendant made out a prima facie case for summary judgment. Although the plaintiff contends that his shooting was related to alleged criminal activities occurring in an adjacent apartment, he failed to adduce proof demonstrating a nexus between the alleged drug dealing in the adjacent apartment and his shooting. Instead, the plaintiff raised conclusory and unsubstantiated allegations which are insufficient to defeat a motion for summary judgment (see, Zuckerman v. City of New York, 49 N.Y.2d 557, 562, 427 N.Y.S.2d 595, 404 N.E.2d 718).
The plaintiff failed to adduce evidence that his assailants were intruders who gained entry to the premises because of an alleged inoperative lock on the front door of the premises. Thus, the plaintiff failed to raise a factual issue as to whether the unlocked door was the proximate cause of his injuries (see, Perry v. New York City Hous. Auth., 222 A.D.2d 567, 635 N.Y.S.2d 661 [2d Dept., 1995]; Gleaton v. New York City Hous. Auth., ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ortiz v. New York City Housing Authority
...v. New York City Housing Auth., 238 A.D.2d 187, 188, 655 N.Y.S.2d 534, 535 (1st Dep't 1997); Folks v. New York City Housing Auth., 227 A.D.2d 520, 521, 643 N.Y.S.2d 179, 180 (2d Dep't 1996). Thus, "`the failure to provide locks on outer doors is only pertinent as an alleged proximate cause ......
-
Woodley v. New York City Housing Authority
...a proximate cause of her injuries (see, e.g. Shinn v. Lefrak Organization, 239 A.D.2d 335, 657 N.Y.S.2d 1005; Folks v. New York City Hous. Auth., 227 A.D.2d 520, 643 N.Y.S.2d 179; Perry v. New York City Hous. Auth., 222 A.D.2d 567, 635 N.Y.S.2d 661; Gleaton v. New York City Hous. Auth., 221......
-
Irizarry v. New York City Housing Authority
...not entitled to summary judgment (see, Rosario v. New York City Hous. Auth., 230 A.D.2d 900, 647 N.Y.S.2d 17; Folks v. New York City Hous. Auth., 227 A.D.2d 520, 643 N.Y.S.2d 179). BRACKEN, J.P., COPERTINO, McGINITY and LUCIANO, JJ., ...
-
Cobb v. New York City Housing Authority
...was the proximate cause of his injuries (see, e.g., Shinn v. Lefrak Org., 239 A.D.2d 335, 657 N.Y.S.2d 1005; Folks v. New York City Hous. Auth., 227 A.D.2d 520, 643 N.Y.S.2d 179; Perry v. New York City Hous. Auth., 222 A.D.2d 567, 635 N.Y.S.2d ...