Carmona v. Sea Park E., L.P.

Summary

The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the denial of summary judgment motions brought by an apartment building owner, manager, and private security contractor in a wrongful-death action arising from a fatal shooting. The court held that alleged defects in building-entry security, including an inoperable intercom, inadequate visitor screening, and piggy-backing, raised triable issues concerning foreseeability and proximate cause. The court rejected the defendants’ argument that the targeted shooting was an unforeseeable intervening act.

Holdings

1. In determining whether summary judgment is warranted in a negligent-door-security case, the relevant inquiry is not whether the crime was targeted or random, but whether and to what extent the allegedly negligently maintained building entrance was a concurrent contributory factor in the criminal occurrence.
2. Landlords are subject to a common-law duty to take minimal precautions to protect tenants from foreseeable harm, including foreseeable criminal conduct by third persons.
3. Summary judgment was properly denied because the moving defendants failed to make a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law.
4. The plaintiff did not improperly raise a new theory of liability concerning the inoperable entrance intercom system for the first time in opposition to the defendants' summary-judgment motions.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the defendants established as a matter of law that Banks's intentional shooting was an unforeseeable intervening cause that severed proximate causation.
2. Whether the alleged inoperable intercom system, inadequate visitor screening, and chronic piggy-backing created triable issues regarding negligent building security, foreseeability, and proximate cause.
3. Whether the plaintiff improperly asserted a new theory concerning the inoperable entrance intercom system for the first time in opposition to summary judgment.
4. Whether the defendants made a prima facie showing entitling them to summary judgment.

Disposition

affirmed