New York Law Review

Tag: criminal acts

  • Rivera v. Oak Point Management, 79 N.Y.2d 982 (1992): Landowner’s Duty to Protect Passersby from Criminal Acts

    Rivera v. Oak Point Management, 79 N.Y.2d 982 (1992)

    A landowner generally does not have a duty to protect passersby from criminal acts occurring outside of its property, even if those acts are committed by individuals who may have been engaging in activity related to the building.

    Summary

    The New York Court of Appeals held that a landlord, Oak Point Management, had no duty to protect an infant plaintiff who was shot on the street 191 feet away from the front of the apartment building they owned and operated. The plaintiff was visiting a tenant in the building. The court reasoned that the plaintiff’s position was no different from any other passerby, and the fact that he was visiting a tenant was merely a coincidence. The court reversed the Appellate Division order and granted summary judgment to Oak Point Management, dismissing the complaint against them.

    Facts

    An infant plaintiff was shot on the street, 191 feet from the front of a residential apartment building owned and operated by Oak Point Management.

    The plaintiff was visiting one of the tenants in the building.

    The area around the building was known for drug-related activity.

    Procedural History

    The Supreme Court initially ruled in favor of the plaintiff.

    The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court’s decision.

    The New York Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division’s order and granted summary judgment to the defendant, Oak Point Management.

    Issue(s)

    Whether Oak Point Management had a duty to secure the front door of its residential apartment building to protect passersby from criminal actions by individuals engaging in drug-related activity in or around the building.

    Holding

    No, because under the circumstances of this case, Oak Point Management had no duty to protect passersby from criminal acts occurring outside of its property. The plaintiff’s presence near the building was merely a fortuity and did not establish a duty of care.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The Court of Appeals relied on precedent from cases like Muniz v Flohern, Inc., 77 N.Y.2d 869 and Waters v New York City Hous. Auth., 69 N.Y.2d 225, which established limits on a landowner’s duty to protect others from criminal activity. The court reasoned that extending the duty of care to a passerby located 191 feet from the building would create an unreasonable burden on landowners. The court emphasized that the plaintiff’s relationship to a building tenant was “a mere fortuity having nothing to do with the circumstances surrounding the shooting.” The court distinguished between a duty to tenants or invitees and a duty to the general public passing by the property. The court essentially determined that foreseeability of criminal activity alone is not sufficient to create a duty of care; a special relationship or other specific circumstances must exist. The decision reflects a policy consideration of limiting landowner liability for criminal acts occurring off their premises when there is no direct causal link or special relationship between the landowner and the victim.

  • Muniz v. Flohern Realty Co., 77 N.Y.2d 869 (1991): Landlord Liability and Foreseeability of Criminal Acts

    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.”