Virella v. 245 N. St. Hous. Dev. Fund Corp.

Summary

The New York Appellate Division, Fourth Department affirmed summary judgment dismissing a tenant’s personal-injury claims against the building owners and manager after the tenant was assaulted by another tenant. The court held that landlords generally have no duty to prevent one tenant from attacking another absent sufficient authority, ability, and opportunity to control the assailant, and that the alleged assault was not shown to be foreseeable. The court also declined to follow Jackson-Ott v Mack to the extent it recognized a broader landlord duty to control tenant conduct.

Holdings

1. A landlord generally has no duty to control a tenant's conduct for the protection of other tenants unless special circumstances establish that the landlord had the authority, ability, and opportunity to control the assailant.
2. Defendants were entitled to summary judgment because they established that they had no ability or opportunity to control the cotenant who allegedly attacked plaintiff, and plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact.
3. Defendants were not liable on the intoxicated-guest theory because they established that they lacked the opportunity or ability to control the intoxicated cotenant, and plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact.
4. Evidence that defendants knew of possible harassment of another tenant did not establish that defendants knew of the cotenant's violent propensities or that the assault was reasonably foreseeable.

Questions Presented

1. Whether landlords and a property manager owed plaintiff a duty to prevent one tenant from assaulting another tenant.
2. Whether defendants had sufficient authority, ability, and opportunity to control the tenant-assailant to establish a duty based on special circumstances.
3. Whether the alleged assault was reasonably foreseeable based on defendants' knowledge of possible harassment involving the cotenant.
4. Whether defendants were potentially liable for injuries caused by an intoxicated cotenant under the duty to supervise intoxicated guests.
5. Whether defendants were entitled to summary judgment because plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact.

Disposition

affirmed