Tirado v. Lubarsky
| Decision Date | 14 February 1966 |
| Citation | 268 N.Y.S.2d 54,49 Misc.2d 543 |
| Parties | Raphael TIRADO, Plaintiff, v. Gerald LUBARSKY et al., Defendants. |
| Court | New York City Court |
Bobick & Deutsch, New York City, for plaintiff.
Bachkoff, Miller & Steger, New York City, for defendants.
Decision
The above-entitled action is one wherein the plaintiff has brought suit against the landlord for personal injuries and loss of property sustained as a result of the commission of a crime, due to the alleged negligence on the part of the landlord-defendant in failing to repair a door lock on the front door of plaintiff's apartment. The testimony on behalf of the plaintiff was to the effect that he had moved into premises 309 East 164th Street, Bronx, New York, approximately two weeks prior to August 1, 1961. Plaintiff contends that he had notified the landlord that the lock on the front door of his apartment, which was located on the ground floor of said premises, was in a defective condition.
On August 1, 1961 at approximately 1:00 a.m., the plaintiff's apartment was broken into. The plaintiff was assaulted by three unknown men causing injuries to the plaintiff requiring him to be hospitalized for approximately four days. In addition thereto, certain items of personal property were stolen from the plaintiff's apartment. The landlord-defendant, one Leo Lubarsky, testified that he rented the apartment to the plaintiff on July 28, 1961; that prior to rental of said apartment, he inspected it and that the lock on the front door of the said apartment was in good working order. He further testified that the plaintiff never made any complaint about the lock being in a defective condition. Detective McVeigh testified that a burglary occurred on August 1, 1961 in the premises occupied by the plaintiff. He did not have any exact statistics to indicate the dangerous character of the neighborhood but apparently said apartment is located in a neighborhood where there is a higher incidence of crime than in other sections of the Bronx. The apartment occupied by the plaintiff, as heretofore stated, was located on the ground floor of the said premises. The burglary occurred on August 1, 1961, which was during the summertime, and apparently windows are kept open. The plaintiff believes that the burglars entered through the door; however, it is possible that they may have entered through an open window.
Essentially the basis of liability is the ability to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Beneficial Commercial Corp. v. Murray Glick Datsun, Inc.
...vehicles if Glick defaulted, it can not be held responsible for the alleged intervening conversion. See Tirado v. Lubarsky, 49 Misc.2d 543, 544, 268 N.Y.S.2d 54, 56 (N.Y.Civ.Ct.), aff'd, 52 Misc.2d 527, 276 N.Y.S.2d 128 (N.Y.App. Term 1966). The Court rejects plaintiff's contention that its......
-
Sherman v. Concourse Realty Corp.
...384, 336 N.Y.S.2d 104, revg. 66 Misc.2d 276, 322 N.Y.S.2d 207; Hall v. Fraknoi, 69 Misc.2d 470, 330 N.Y.S.2d 637; Tirado v. Lubarsky, 49 Misc.2d 543, 268 N.Y.S.2d 54, affd. 52 Misc.2d 527, 276 N.Y.S.2d 1281. A review of the cases is helpful to a consideration of the problem In Horney v. Wor......
-
Cullen v. BMW of North America, Inc.
...800, 807 (Ct. of Claims 1975); Smith v. ABC Realty Co., 71 Misc.2d 384, 336 N.Y.S.2d 104 (App. Term 1st Dept. 1972); Tirado v. Lubarsky, 49 Misc.2d 543, 268 N.Y.S.2d 54 (Civ.Ct.Bronx Cty.), aff'd, 52 Misc.2d 527, 276 N.Y.S.2d 128 (App. Term 1st Dept. 1966); cf. Sherman v. Concourse Realty C......
-
Ward v. State
...50; Rucker v. Andress, 38 A.D.2d 684, 327 N.Y.S.2d 91, 848; Vincent v. Dickinson, 36 A.D.2d 570, 317 N.Y.S.2d 682 and Tirado v. Lubarsky, 49 Misc.2d 543, 268 N.Y.S.2d 54, aff'd, 52 Misc.2d 527, 276 N.Y.S.2d Not every possible accident due to unusual and reasonably foreseeable combinations o......