Muniz v. Flohern Realty Co., 77 N.Y.2d 869 (1991)
A landlord generally does not owe a duty of care to a passerby injured by a criminal act occurring on the leased premises, even if the landlord knew of illegal activity taking place there, unless there is a specific relationship between the landlord and the injured party or between the landlord and the perpetrator.
Summary
This case concerns the extent of a landlord’s liability for injuries sustained by a third party due to criminal activity on the leased premises. The New York Court of Appeals held that the landlords were not liable for injuries to a passerby who was shot during a robbery of their tenant’s store, even though the landlords allegedly knew the tenant was involved in drug trafficking. The court reasoned that there was no relationship between the landlords and the gunman or the victim that would create a duty of care. The absence of such a relationship negated both common-law negligence and claims based on Real Property Law § 231(2).
Facts
The infant plaintiff was permanently blinded when struck by shotgun pellets during an attempted robbery of a store in a building owned by the defendants. The robber discharged the shotgun from inside the store. Plaintiffs alleged that the store tenant was conducting drug trafficking activities on the premises. The plaintiffs further alleged that the defendants were aware of the illegal drug use but did not attempt to stop it.
Procedural History
The plaintiffs sued the landlords, seeking damages for the injuries sustained by the infant plaintiff. The defendants moved for summary judgment to dismiss the complaint. The Appellate Division’s order was appealed to the New York Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division’s order and granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment, dismissing the complaint.
Issue(s)
Whether landlords owe a duty of care to a passerby injured by a criminal act committed by a third party on the leased premises, where the landlords allegedly knew of illegal drug activity on the premises but had no relationship with either the perpetrator or the victim.
Holding
No, because under the circumstances of this case, the defendants owed no duty to the infant plaintiff. Thus, no liability for the injuries can be imposed.
Court’s Reasoning
The court based its decision on the absence of a relationship between the landlords and the gunman, the attempted robbery and the illicit drug activity, or the landlords and the injured passerby. The court cited several cases, including Pulka v. Edelman, 40 N.Y.2d 781, to support the principle that a duty of care generally requires a specific relationship between the parties. Without such a relationship, there is no basis for imposing liability. The court stated, “There was no relationship between defendants and the gunman who robbed the streetfront store of their building. Nor was there any relationship between the attempted robbery and the illicit drug activity such as to require defendants to attempt to control the conduct of either the tenant or the gunman. Moreover, there was no relationship between defendants and the infant plaintiff requiring defendants to afford protection from potential dangers springing from the tenant’s illicit drug trafficking in the streetfront store.” The court also addressed the claim based on Real Property Law § 231(2), which imposes liability on landlords for damages resulting from unlawful activities on the premises. However, the court stated that the failure of the common-law claim also defeated the statutory claim. The court emphasized that the deficiency in plaintiffs’ common-law claim alone defeats their statutory claim, noting that “In this case, the deficiency in plaintiffs’ common-law claim alone defeats their statutory claim.”