Perry v. Board of Trustees of Vil. of Garden City, 4 N.Y.3d 60 (2004)
In a negligent security claim, a plaintiff must demonstrate that inadequate security was the proximate cause of their injuries, and that the criminal act was foreseeable and preventable.
Summary
Perry, an undergraduate student, sued the Board of Trustees after being shot on campus by a non-student. Perry argued that the university’s inadequate security and lighting in the fraternity quad proximately caused his injuries. The Supreme Court initially denied the defendant’s motion for summary judgment, but the Appellate Division reversed, granting the defendant summary judgment. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that Perry failed to provide sufficient evidence that the alleged security lapses were the proximate cause of the shooting or that the criminal act was foreseeable and preventable.
Facts
The plaintiff, an undergraduate student, was shot without provocation by a non-student. The incident occurred outside a fraternity house located in a residential area of the defendant’s campus known as the “fraternity quad.” The plaintiff claimed the university was negligent because security and lighting were inadequate.
Procedural History
The Supreme Court denied the defendant’s motion for summary judgment. The Appellate Division reversed the Supreme Court’s decision and granted summary judgment to the defendant. The plaintiff appealed to the Court of Appeals.
Issue(s)
Whether the plaintiff presented sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the alleged inadequate security and lighting were the proximate cause of the shooting and that the criminal attack was foreseeable or preventable.
Holding
No, because the plaintiff presented no evidence beyond mere conclusions and unsubstantiated allegations that the alleged insufficient security and lighting proximately caused the shooting, or that the criminal attack was foreseeable or preventable.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division’s decision, emphasizing that the plaintiff’s claims lacked evidentiary support. The court relied on precedent, citing Rodriguez v New York City Hous. Auth., stating that the plaintiff offered only “[m]ere conclusions, expressions of hope or unsubstantiated allegations” to support his claim. The court also referenced Maheshwari v City of New York, emphasizing the necessity of demonstrating that the criminal attack was foreseeable or preventable. The Court found that the plaintiff failed to provide any concrete evidence linking the alleged security deficiencies to the shooting. Because the plaintiff didn’t establish proximate cause or foreseeability, the defendant was entitled to summary judgment. The Court did not elaborate on specific factors that would establish foreseeability but reinforced the requirement for concrete evidence beyond speculative claims.