Siino v. Reices
| Decision Date | 26 June 1995 |
| Citation | 628 N.Y.S.2d 757,216 A.D.2d 552 |
| Parties | Carolyn SIINO, Appellant, v. Anna REICES, et al., Respondents. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Paul E. Kerson and Ezra T. Greenberg, Forest Hills, for appellant.
Colligan & Delgross, Garden City (Rose M. Del Re, of counsel), for respondent Roy Rypins.
Before SULLIVAN, J.P., and PIZZUTO, SANTUCCI and GOLDSTEIN, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for extreme emotional distress, the plaintiff appeals (1) from a decision of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Lane, J.), dated January 3, 1994, and (2), as limited by her brief, from so much of an order and judgment (one paper) of the same court, dated March 1, 1994, as granted the defendant Roy Rypins' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as it is asserted against him.
ORDERED that the respondent Roy Rypins is awarded one bill of costs.
The plaintiff lived in a building with a party wall that adjoined a building owned by the defendant Roy Rypins. The plaintiff alleges that she was caused to endure extreme emotional distress by the conduct of Rypins' tenants, the defendants Anna Reices and Eduardo Reices, who lived in the adjoining apartment. The plaintiff alleged, inter alia, that Rypins had notice that his tenants were harassing and threatening her and that Rypins negligently and carelessly failed and neglected to evict the Reices. Rypins moved for summary judgment, asserting that he had no duty to prevent the incident complained of.
We agree with the trial court that the plaintiff has failed to establish the existence of a duty owed to her by Rypins.
It is well-settled law that a landowner has a duty to maintain his property "in a reasonably safe condition and to take reasonable precautionary measures to protect tenants from foreseeable criminal intrusions on the premises (see, Miller v. State of New York, 62 N.Y.2d 506, 478 N.Y.S.2d 829, 467 N.E.2d 493)" (Johnson v. Slocum Realty Corp., 191 A.D.2d 613, 614, 595 N.Y.S.2d 244). Absent authority to control the conduct of a third person, a landowner does not have a duty to protect a tenant from the conduct of another tenant (see, Johnson...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Francis v. Kings Park Manor, Inc.
...Torre v. Paul A. Burke Constr., Inc. , 238 A.D.2d 941, 661 N.Y.S.2d 145, 146 (4th Dep’t 1997) (quoting Siino v. Reices , 216 A.D.2d 552, 628 N.Y.S.2d 757, 758 (2d Dep’t 1995) ). Hence, a landlord has no duty to protect a tenant from even the criminal act of another "since it cannot be said ......
-
Taggart v. Costabile
...v. Singer Warehouse & Trucking Corp., 86 A.D.2d 826, 828, 447 N.Y.S.2d 265 ; accord Second Restatement § 837 [1]; cf. Siino v. Reices, 216 A.D.2d 552, 553, 628 N.Y.S.2d 757 ; Johnson v. Slocum Realty Corp., 191 A.D.2d 613, 613, 595 N.Y.S.2d 244 ). In the absence of any such knowledge or con......
-
Francis v. Kings Park Manor, Inc.
...however, is insufficient to hold a landlord liable for his tenant's tortious actions against another tenant. See Siino v. Reices (1995), 216 A.D.2d 552, 553, 628 N.Y.S.2d 757 (“Absent authority to control the conduct of a third person, a landowner does not have a duty to protect a tenant fr......
-
Virella v. 245 N. St. Hous. Dev. Fund Corp.
...opportunity or effective means to control a third person does not arise from the mere power to evict" ( Siino v. Reices , 216 A.D.2d 552, 553, 628 N.Y.S.2d 757 [2d Dept. 1995] ; see Britt , 3 A.D.3d at 514, 770 N.Y.S.2d 744 ). Thus, in general, landowners "ha[ve] no duty to control [their t......