Tenant Claims Nonworking Intercom Resulted in Robbery

September 30, 1995

LVT Number: 10026

Tenant sued landlord for negligence after he was robbed in his apartment. Tenant claimed the robbery occurred due to an inoperative intercom system. His wife had gone to the store, and he thought he was buzzing her into the building. When he opened the apartment door, armed robbers entered. The court ruled for tenant without a trial, and landlord appealed. The appeals court ruled for landlord. The lower court had apparently relied on the fact that the DHCR had recently found a reduction in services based on the broken intercom. But this wasn't the same as negligence.

Tenant sued landlord for negligence after he was robbed in his apartment. Tenant claimed the robbery occurred due to an inoperative intercom system. His wife had gone to the store, and he thought he was buzzing her into the building. When he opened the apartment door, armed robbers entered. The court ruled for tenant without a trial, and landlord appealed. The appeals court ruled for landlord. The lower court had apparently relied on the fact that the DHCR had recently found a reduction in services based on the broken intercom. But this wasn't the same as negligence. Tenant had two locks on his apartment door and a peephole. It was therefore too speculative to claim that the robbery was caused by the broken intercom.

Elie v. Kraus: NYLJ, p. 26, col. 5 (9/5/95) (App. Div. 1 Dept.; Rosenberger, JP, Ellerin, Kupferman, Tom, Mazzarelli, JJ)

Topics

More like this