Legal Opinion
Newell v. Swiss Reassurance Co.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Decided March 12, 1992PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
— Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Eugene L. Nardelli, J.), entered September 20, 1991, which denied defendant-appellant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint without prejudice to renewal upon completion of disclosure, unanimously affirmed, with costs.
*506A party who possesses realty either as an owner or a tenant is under a duty to exercise reasonable care to maintain the premises in a safe condition (see, Manning v New York Tel. Co., 157 AD2d 264), including taking reasonable precautions to protect members of the public from foreseeable criminal acts of third persons…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Nallan v. Helmsley-Spear, Inc.New York Court of Appeals · 1980
- Manning v. New York Telephone Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1990
- Carroll v. Ar De Realty Corp.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1990
3Cited by5 opinions
- Vangeli v. SchneiderAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1993
- Rodriguez v. New York City Housing AuthorityAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1995
- Stickle v. City-Wide Security Services, Inc.District Court, S.D. New York · 1993
- Rodriguez v. Oak Point Management Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1994
- Milkie v. Tops Markets, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1994