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.