Burgos v. Aqueduct Realty Corp.

New York Court of Appeals · Torts

Tortslandlord liabilitypremises securityproximate causecriminal acts of third partiesnegligent securitylandlord dutyminimal precautions

Facts

In Burgos, the plaintiff was attacked, beaten, and robbed in her apartment by two unknown men after opening her door into the hallway. She stated that she knew all tenants in her small 25-unit building, did not recognize the assailants, and had repeatedly complained that the front, back, and roof doors had no functioning locks despite prior robberies in the building. In Gomez, a 12-year-old plaintiff saw a man enter her building through a rear door that did not fit its frame and remained open; he entered the elevator without selecting a floor, followed her out, and raped and sodomized her on the roof landing. The Gomez plaintiff and other witnesses familiar with the building did not recognize the assailant, and he entered and left through the broken rear door without disguise.

Issue

Whether tenants in negligent-security actions against landlords can satisfy proximate cause when their assailants are unidentified by presenting evidence that reasonably supports an inference that the attackers were intruders who gained access through negligently maintained entrances. Also, whether the proof in Burgos and Gomez was sufficient, respectively, to survive summary judgment and to sustain the jury's verdict.

Rule

A landlord has a common-law duty to take minimal precautions to protect tenants from foreseeable harm, including foreseeable criminal conduct by third parties. In a negligent-security case, the causal link between the landlord's breach and the tenant's injury exists only if the assailant was an intruder who gained access through a negligently maintained entrance. A plaintiff need not exclude every other possible cause or identify the assailant; at trial, proximate cause is sufficiently shown if the evidence makes it more likely or more reasonable than not that the assailant was such an intruder, and on summary judgment the plaintiff need only raise a triable issue of fact on that point.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Leila Ortiz lived in a 14-unit walk-up in Albany. After she stepped into the hall outside her apartment, an unmasked man shoved her inside and robbed her; Leila later swore that she knew all residents and their immediate family members by sight and that the building’s front and rear entrance locks had not worked for months despite repeated complaints.

If the landlord moves for summary judgment arguing that Leila cannot prove proximate cause because she cannot identify the assailant, how should the court rule?

Explanation. A landlord may be liable for negligent security only if the attack was committed by an intruder who gained access through a negligently maintained entrance. But the plaintiff need not identify the assailant or eliminate every alternative explanation. On summary judgment, the plaintiff need only raise a triable issue of fact. Leila’s familiarity with all residents and families, her failure to recognize the unmasked attacker, and the nonfunctioning entrance locks are enough to permit that inference. (Derived from Burgos v. Aqueduct Realty Corp. (n.d.).)