When the plaintiff in Pena v Penny Lane Realty Inc was robbed  at gunpoint in the lobby of her apartment building, she sued the building owner for failing to repair a defective lock on the entrance door.  The plaintiff testified that the week leading up to the assault she did not need to use her key to open the door that entire week.  Her husband had called the superintendent of the building just that week to complain that the front door lock was inoperable.  Additionally, a police officer testified that the NYPD had identified the neighborhood as having a “robbery pattern” and that a homicide had occurred directly in front of the building just a few weeks prior. 

Countering this evidence, the live in superintendent testified that he inspected the lock daily and that it was in fact functioning both before and after the assault.  On this basis, the trial court granted the building owner’s  motion for summary judgment.

 The First Department reversed finding questions of fact as to whether the landlord had discharged its duty to take minimal security precautions in light of the foreseeability of criminal activity in the area.  The Court found that if the superintendent inspected the lock daily, the jury could reasonably conclude that he would have had sufficient time to discover and remedy a faulty lock.  The Court also determined that if the incident occurred in the manner presented by plaintiff, a jury could find that the assailant could have gained access to the building through the negligently maintained door.

Thanks to Sheree Fitzgerald for her contribution.

For more information, contact Denise Fontana Ricci at .