No Proof that Assailant Was Intruder

LVT Number: 12361

Tenant sued landlord after he was attacked in a housing development. Tenant claimed his attacker was an intruder who got into the building as a result of landlord's negligence. Landlord asked the court to dismiss the case without a trial. The court ruled against landlord, and landlord appealed. The appeals court ruled for landlord. Tenant couldn't identify his attacker, so it was impossible to tell whether the attacker was an intruder who gained access as a result of landlord's negligence.

Tenant sued landlord after he was attacked in a housing development. Tenant claimed his attacker was an intruder who got into the building as a result of landlord's negligence. Landlord asked the court to dismiss the case without a trial. The court ruled against landlord, and landlord appealed. The appeals court ruled for landlord. Tenant couldn't identify his attacker, so it was impossible to tell whether the attacker was an intruder who gained access as a result of landlord's negligence. Tenant's speculation wasn't enough to prove landlord's negligence or even to raise a question of fact requiring a trial. The case was dismissed.

Cofield v. NYCHA: NYLJ, p. 30, col. 2 (5/1/98) (App. Div. 2 Dept.; Bracken, JP, Thompson, Pizzuto, Florio, JJ)