Case Name: Edwin Ramos, Appellant, v. Washington 2302 Plaza Associates, L.P., et al., Respondents, et al., Defendant; Washington 2302 Plaza Associates, L.P., et al., Third-Party Plaintiffs-Respondents, v. Carnegie Construction Corp., Third-Party Defendant-Respondent, et al., Third-Party Defendant
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 2016-02-16
Citations: 136 A.D.3d 517
Docket Number: 
Parties: Edwin Ramos, Appellant, v Washington 2302 Plaza Associates, L.P., et al., Respondents, et al., Defendant. Washington 2302 Plaza Associates, L.P., et al., Third-Party Plaintiffs-Respondents, v Carnegie Construction Corp., Third-Party Defendant-Respondent, et al., Third-Party Defendant.
Judges: Concur — Tom, J.P., Acosta, Moskowitz and Gische, JJ.
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 136
Pages: 517–517

Head Matter:
Edwin Ramos, Appellant, v Washington 2302 Plaza Associates, L.P., et al., Respondents, et al., Defendant. Washington 2302 Plaza Associates, L.P., et al., Third-Party Plaintiffs-Respondents, v Carnegie Construction Corp., Third-Party Defendant-Respondent, et al., Third-Party Defendant.
[24 NYS3d 647]—

Opinion:
Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Lucindo Suarez, J.), entered September 5, 2014, which, insofar as appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted defendants Washington 2302 Plaza Associates, L.P., Washington Plaza Associates, and J.M.I. Management Company, Inc.'s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Defendants established their entitlement to summary judgment by tendering evidence that there was no prior criminal activity at their premises likely to endanger the safety of plaintiff, and that plaintiff's alleged attacker's conduct was not foreseeable (see Jacqueline S. v City of New York, 81 NY2d 288, 294-295 [1993]; Jean v Wright, 82 AD3d 1163, 1164 [2d Dept 2011], lv denied 17 NY3d 704 [2011]).
In opposition, plaintiff failed to provide any evidence indicating that the persons who attacked him were intruders or gained access to the building because of any lapse in security. Under these circumstances, there is no triable issue of fact as to whether any alleged negligence on defendants' part was the proximate cause of plaintiff's injuries (see Rodriguez v Camaway Realty, Inc., 96 AD3d 479, 479 [1st Dept 2012]; Schwartz v Niki Trading Corp., 222 AD2d 214, 214 [1st Dept 1995], lv denied 87 NY2d 810 [1996]).
Concur — Tom, J.P., Acosta, Moskowitz and Gische, JJ.