Legal Opinion
Alebrande v. New York City Housing Authority
Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York
Decided March 17, 1966PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Per curiam
The evidence presented does not establish that the tenants ’ loss, resulting from an act of vandalism, could have been reasonably anticipated so as to impose a duty upon the landlord to increase existing security measures.
Judgment reversed, with $30 costs, and judgment directed for the defendant, with costs.
Hofstadter, J. P.
I cannot agree that as matter of law plaintiffs failed to establish negligence on the part of defendant. If defendant failed to provide adequate safeguards against vandalism — an issue of fact (Beauchamp v. New York City Housing Auth., 12 N Y 2d 400, 407-408) —it is liable…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Williams v. State of New YorkNew York Court of Appeals · 1955
- Lowery v. . Manhattan Railway Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1885
- In re the PeopleAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1938
- Matter of PeopleNew York Court of Appeals · 1938
- De Sessa v. City of White PlainsNew York Supreme Court · 1961
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Henderson v. HolleyAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1985
- Conboy v. Studio 54, Inc.Civil Court of the City of New York · 1982
- Graham v. M & J CORP.District of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1980
- Graham v. M & J CORP.District of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1980
- Johnson v. Palmer College FoundationCourt of Appeals of Iowa · 1978