Legal Opinion
Roberts v. Nostrand Hillel Food, Inc.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Decided December 27, 2011PublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
“[A] landlord has a duty to maintain minimal security measures, related to a specific building itself, in the face of foreseeable criminal intrusion” (Miller v State of New York, 62 NY2d 506, 513 [1984]; see Nallan v Helmsley-Spear, Inc., 50 NY2d 507, 519-520 [1980]).
The defendants established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting evidence demonstrating that the acts committed by the other customer against the plaintiff were not foreseeable. They had no knowledge or information about that customer that would put them on notice of his propensity to assault…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Alvarez v. Prospect HospitalNew York Court of Appeals · 1986
- Nallan v. Helmsley-Spear, Inc.New York Court of Appeals · 1980
- Miller v. State of New YorkNew York Court of Appeals · 1984
- Lindskog v. Southland Restaurant, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1990
- Royston v. Long Island Medical Center, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2011
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Kranenberg v. TKRS Pub, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2012
- Kranenberg v. TKRS Pub, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2012
- Muzafarov v. Casallas-GonzalezAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2018