New York Court of Appeals, 1995

Rodriguez v. New York City Housing Authority

New York Court of Appeals · Decided December 28, 1995 · Kaye and Judges Simons, Titone, Bellacosa, Smith, Levine and Ciparick Concur in Memorandum

663 N.E.2d 320; 87 N.Y.2d 887; 639 N.Y.S.2d 1008; 1995 N.Y. LEXIS 4757 (North Eastern Reporter, Second Series)

Cases that cite this one

12 later published cases cite this decision.

Ali v. City of New York (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2008)
Colarossi v. University of Rochester (N.Y. 2004)
Harris v. City of New York (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2003)
Staveris v. 125 Holding Co. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2000)
Guadagno v. Terrace Tenants Corp. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1999)
Gibbs v. Diamond (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1998)
Davis v. Jo-Ern Realty Corp. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1997)
Sweeney v. Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1997)
Folks v. New York City Housing Authority (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1996)
Bennett v. Saeger Hotels, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1996)
Bell v. Board of Education (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1996)
Maria S. v. Willow Enterprises Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1996)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed, with costs, the certified question answered in the negative, and defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint granted.

Plaintiff was robbed and beaten in a nighttime mugging by several unidentified perpetrators as he walked across an open area of a parking lot in defendant’s apartment complex. The attackers covered plaintiffs head with a blanket and beat him about the legs and face. Plaintiff alleged that the proximate cause of his injuries was that the only light in the parking lot was not functioning.

Supreme Court denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, and the Appellate Division affirmed, by a 3-to-2 vote. That Court then granted leave to appeal to this Court on a certified question.

We conclude that on the record of this case, no genuine issues of fact concerning the malfunctioning light as the proximate cause of plaintiff’s injuries were proffered in response to defendant’s motion to dismiss. An examination of plaintiffs opposition motion papers reveals no evidentiary proof "in admissible form,” other than " ' "[m]ere conclusions, expressions of hope or unsubstantiated allegations or assertions,” ’ ” that the alleged insufficient lighting in the parking lot may have contributed to the criminal incident leading to plaintiff’s injuries (Ascher v Garafolo Elec. Co., 113 AD2d 728, 731 [quoting Krupp v Aetna Life & Cas. Co., 103 AD2d 252, 262 (citations omitted)], affd for reasons stated below 67 NY2d 637).

Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Simons, Titone, Bellacosa, Smith, Levine and Ciparick concur in memorandum.

*889 On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.4 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.4), order reversed, etc.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.