Burgos v. Aqueduct Realty Corp., 92 N.Y.2d 544 (1998)

In premises security cases, a plaintiff can establish proximate cause against a landlord for negligent security even when the assailant is unidentified, if the evidence suggests it is more likely than not the assailant was an intruder who entered through a negligently maintained entrance.

Summary

These consolidated cases address the issue of landlord liability for tenant injuries resulting from third-party criminal attacks in negligently secured premises. The New York Court of Appeals held that tenants can recover damages if they demonstrate the landlord’s negligence was a proximate cause of their injuries, specifically by showing the assailant was an intruder who gained access through a negligently maintained entrance. The Court clarified that a plaintiff isn’t required to identify the assailant but must present evidence making it more likely than not the assailant was an intruder who entered due to the landlord’s negligence. The Court reversed the lower courts’ decisions, finding sufficient evidence in both cases to suggest the assailants were intruders.

Facts

In Burgos, the plaintiff was attacked in her apartment building by two unknown men. She claimed the building’s entrances lacked functioning locks despite repeated complaints and prior robberies. She also stated she knew all the tenants in the building.
In Gomez, the 12-year-old plaintiff was sexually assaulted after a man entered her apartment building through a broken back door. The plaintiff and other residents testified they did not recognize the assailant, who made no attempt to hide his identity.

Procedural History

In Burgos, the trial court denied the defendant’s motion for summary judgment, but the Appellate Division reversed, granting summary judgment to the defendants.
In Gomez, the jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff, but the Supreme Court granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint. The Appellate Division affirmed.
The New York Court of Appeals consolidated the cases and heard them together.

Issue(s)

1. Whether a tenant, injured by a criminal attack in their apartment building, must identify their assailant to prove the assailant was an intruder for the purpose of establishing proximate cause in a negligence claim against the landlord?
2. Whether circumstantial evidence can be sufficient to establish that an assailant was an intruder who gained access through a negligently maintained entrance, even if the assailant is unidentified?

Holding

1. No, because a blanket rule precluding recovery whenever the attacker remains unidentified would place an impossible burden on tenants and undermine the deterrent effect of tort law on negligent landlords.
2. Yes, because a plaintiff who sues a landlord for negligent failure to take minimal precautions to protect tenants from harm can satisfy the proximate cause burden at trial even where the assailant remains unidentified, if the evidence renders it more likely or more reasonable than not that the assailant was an intruder who gained access to the premises through a negligently maintained entrance.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court reasoned that while landlords have a duty to take minimal precautions to protect tenants from foreseeable harm, they are not liable for all criminal activity in their buildings. To establish proximate cause, a tenant must show the assailant gained access through a negligently maintained entrance, indicating they were an intruder. The court explicitly rejected a blanket rule requiring identification of the assailant, as it would create an insurmountable burden for tenants and reduce landlords’ incentive to maintain adequate security.
The court emphasized that the plaintiff only needs to present evidence from which intruder status may reasonably be inferred. The Court cited Schneider v Kings Highway Hosp. Ctr., 67 NY2d 743, 744-745 (1986), and Gayle v City of New York, 92 NY2d 936 (1998) to support the view that proximate cause may be inferred when the possibility of another explanation is sufficiently remote. Evidence such as the plaintiff’s familiarity with building residents, lack of disguise by the assailant, and a broken or malfunctioning entrance could contribute to such inference.
In Burgos, the plaintiff’s statement that she knew all the tenants, combined with the non-functioning locks, raised a triable issue of fact. In Gomez, the testimony that the assailant was not recognized by multiple residents, coupled with the broken back door, was sufficient for a jury to reasonably infer the assailant was an intruder.
The Court concluded, “a plaintiff who sues a landlord for negligent failure to take minimal precautions to protect tenants from harm can satisfy the proximate cause burden at trial even where the assailant remains unidentified, if the evidence renders it more likely or more reasonable than not that the assailant was an intruder who gained access to the premises through a negligently maintained entrance.”