Bennett v. Twin Parks Northeast Houses, Inc.
Cases that cite this one
9 later published cases cite this decision.
- A.D.G. v. Children's Ark Daycare Ctr., Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2019)
- Cesar Ivan A. v. Lolita Child Day Care (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
- Cesar Ivan A. v. Lolita Child Day Care (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
- Muong v. 550 Ocean Avenue, LLC (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2010)
- Venetal v. City of New York (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2005)
- Calderin v. Lyra Associates, L. L. C. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2001)
- Reynolds v. New York City Housing Authority (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2000)
- Bennett v. Twin Parks Northeast Houses, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1999)
- Zion Tsabbar, D.D.S., P. C. v. Hirsch (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1999)
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 of the Court
OPINION OF THE COURT
Memorandum.
The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed, with costs, and the case remitted to the Appellate Division for consideration of an issue raised but not determined on the appeal to that court. It is unnecessary to answer the certified question.
The assailant who attacked plaintiff in the lobby and elevator of her apartment building remains unidentified. Plaintiff, however, has raised a triable issue of fact regarding whether it was “more likely or more reasonable than not that the assailant was an intruder who gained access to the premises through a negligently maintained entrance” (Burgos v Aqueduct Realty Corp., 92 NY2d 544, 551). Therefore, the lower courts should not have granted summary judgment to defendants on proximate cause grounds.
An issue lingers, however, as to whether defendant Twin Parks is entitled to summary judgment on the alternative ground that it was an out-of-possession titleholder, with no duties or responsibilities concerning the security of the building. While this issue was raised in the courts below, the Appellate Division did not address or resolve it. We therefore reverse and remit to the Appellate Division for determination of the undecided issue.
On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.4 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.4), order reversed, with costs, and case remitted to the Appellate Division, First Department, for further proceedings in accordance with the memorandum herein. Certified question not answered as unnecessary.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.