Wheeler v. Linden Plaza Preserv., LP

Summary

The Appellate Division, First Department modified an order denying summary judgment to Linden Plaza Preservation, Linden Plaza Housing, and RY Management, granting their motions and otherwise affirming the order. The court held that the defendants established the absence of damages supporting the plaintiff's negligence claims and that the remaining claims, including negligent training, negligent supervision, trespass to chattel, conversion, and negligent infliction of emotional distress, were legally deficient or unsupported by the evidence. The court also affirmed summary judgment for Madison Security Group based on the absence of a duty to the plaintiff and concluded that punitive damages were unavailable.

Holdings

1. Madison Security Group was entitled to summary judgment because it did not owe plaintiff a duty of care in the circumstances presented.
2. Linden Plaza Preservation, Linden Plaza Housing, and RY Management were entitled to summary judgment because plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to damages, a necessary element of negligence.
3. The negligent training and negligent supervision claims were defective because the complaint alleged that the employees acted within the scope of their employment.
4. The alleged denial of access to the apartment did not support punitive damages.
5. The trespass to chattel claim was defective because plaintiff presented no evidence that her medications or medical supplies were damaged.
6. The conversion claim was unsupported because a lawful eviction and storage of a tenant's property do not constitute conversion.
7. Summary judgment on the negligent infliction of emotional distress claim was warranted because plaintiff was not shown to have been in physical danger and testified that she had no physical contact with the building superintendent.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Madison Security Group owed plaintiff a duty of care in connection with the denial of access to her apartment.
2. Whether Linden Plaza Preservation, Linden Plaza Housing, and RY Management were entitled to summary judgment on plaintiff's negligence claims for failure to establish damages.
3. Whether plaintiff's negligent training and negligent supervision claims were legally deficient because the alleged employees acted within the scope of their employment.
4. Whether plaintiff's conduct allegations supported punitive damages.
5. Whether plaintiff's trespass to chattel, conversion, and negligent infliction of emotional distress claims were legally or evidentially sufficient.

Disposition

other