Gjonbalaj v West 89th St. Condominium

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Gjonbalaj v West 89th St. Condominium 2012 NY Slip Op 31920(U) July 16, 2012 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: 109920/2008 Judge: Saliann Scarpulla Republished from New York State Unified Court System's E-Courts Service. Search E-Courts (http://www.nycourts.gov/ecourts) for any additional information on this case. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication. [* 1] SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK - NEW YORK COUNTY INDEX NO. Index Number : 109920/2008 GJONBALAJ, ALI MOTION DATE VY 317 WEST 89TH STREET MOTION SEQ. NO. Sequcnce Number: 007 PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION CAL. NO. The following papers, numbered 1 to Notice of Motion/ Order t o Show Cause were read on this motion to/for - Affidavits - Exhibits ... Answering Affidavits - Exhibits Replying Affidavits Cross-Motion: u Yes n No Upon the foregoing papers. it I PAPERS NUMBERED la ordered that this motion der,ided per the meniornndum decision dated which disposes of motion sequence(s) no. mT & 00 b - lated: -t ; :heck one: L 1 FINAL DISPOSITION Check if appropriate: fl L1 DO NOT POST SUBMIT ORDER/ JUDG. u REFERENCE n SETTLE ORDER/ JUDG. [* 2] SUPKEME COURI' OF 'I'HE S'.I'A'l'P, 01; N E W YORK COIJN'I'Y (.)I: NIiW YOKK: PART 19 Jiidcx No. I09920/2008 Submission Datc: 4/41] 2 P I a inti SS, - il gar 11s t - -agai 1 s t 1 HON. SAI.1ANN SCIARN JLLA, .I.: 1 [* 3] 2 [* 4] 3 17 West rctained Sanison to proviclc, propcrty mariagemcnt services for thc Cloniioiiiiiii~rm.Samsoii Iiacl uniploycd (.ijoribali~~j.Smisoii also eriipluyed Gregory FTa)/c: 17roperty iiianagclI [or thc Coiidominiulil. I layc tcstilied at his deposition i that he hcg;in working fx San-isoii befhrc the murder, altliougll Iic c o d d not recall tlic date \vheli his employment I-Iaye tcstiGed that he w i s not present at the birilclirig on tlic day oftlie murder. Although lie testified that he would visit tlic j~rernises pcriodically, hc did not say wliuri or if he had visited, inspected. or corid~tcted y m investi g:t t ioii of the h i lding o r (13i oiibala j s a.partmunt a tier the inurder. C;ioiibalaj \.vas S;iinsoIi s sole criiployee, at the building, I-lnyc testilicd that Cijoribal~i~j s clutics iiidiided ovcrseeirig the un-site operation of thc hirildiiig. which eiiwmpasscd ovcrsceing tlic portcrsldoormeii. I n Fel~riiury 2004. Saiiison as agciit for 3 17 West, cnterecl irilo n Clcaiiiiig Contract \with defendant I:oiir Star, \whicIi rciiiniiicd in eff ccl at tlic time ot C;jonbalnj s death. Pursirant to the Cleaning Chntracl, Voirr Star providud portci-s arid dooriiieii at the condominiuni, and pursuant to later negoti:itioiis, the porters and doormc11 provided around the clock servicc. According to Four Star gcneral iiianiiger, Christ iria T Toliiiian ( I IolT~iim ), three i ortcrs/doormen worlied at the 1 Iicre iippcars to he a qircstjori as to whether TIaye worked lisr Samsori whcn ~iTjoiihalyi inurdcrtxl. Haye testiticd nt his deposition that lie began \vurkiiig li)r was ? Saiiisoii tlirce and onc-hdf years earlier, which would have been approximately three months af tcr the niurdcr. Yet TTayc also testiticd that hc w o r l d at [lie building at tlic tinic OK the iiiirrdcr. Additionally, Mr. Gjonbalaj restiiiccl that his son s supcrvisor clinngcd cmcc while tic worhed as the sitperintcndcnt , [* 5] l ~ r c m i s e ~ each putting in a11 eight-hoiir shirt , 3 1lie clcaning contract indicated that daily, tlic people staffing tlic building s fr-ont door were required, during specified hours, to perform clcming scrvices to the lobby, fi-orit hallway, and elevator, iiiid to attend to also keep the bascmcnt and h i t sidewalk clcan, and. The coiilract providcd that the porter-slc~c7orriierl Icl perform other clc:rning services on requcst li)r d d itional fees. WOII l lie huildirig x frolit ciitrancc had ; vcstibulc I and ii locked door, leading to the lobhy. 1 Iic I < oiir Star ciiiployccs, while serving in the doorineri capacity, \vorked in tlie vestibrile. I lie huildirig also had a buzzcrlintcrcom systciti. Beside the front cnlryway, there wiis another locked cloorway, which led to the tiaseiiiorit. According to Mr. Gjonbalaj, l1it.i~ was another entry into the basement, which was within the brrilding, a f cw steps down fi-om the lobby lcvcl I i c x h e reiir door ul tlic huiltlitig. Tlic h ilcliiig also had a liaclidoor, wliicli was located 1icar tlic service elevator. would pick up garbage Gom the lelxmts aparlments, had the giirbage lhrougli the back courtyard, aroiiiid ii sidc alley, alid to the front of the builcliiig. While the hack of tlic opeiiing in tlial fence, or whctlier thcrc wcrc doors bctwccii tlic coi1rty;ii-d m the alley d iiiid lielweeii the alley and the h n t c)l the biiilding. TToffiiiaii did riot krio\?i whcthcr the i T ToFl-iiian testified thai she 11x1 only bccii on the prcniiscs oricc, whcn she llrst started thc nccoullt. 4 [* 6] backdour luclcecl. Mr. (.~jonhaIajkstil7ed that lit: visitccl his son at tlic building about five tiiiics during the hi-ee ycars tlial his soli was 111e supcriiileiiclelit, and on sonic of those occiisioiis tlic b a l;door was loclicd. According to Mr. Cijoiihal;ij. at the tiiiic ol tlie iiiurdcr, his mii liad been on vacatioii for at least tlircc days. Gjonbalaj had allegedly tolcl his 1:dtherthat ii supcrinteiicleiit fi-om ii biiildirig iicross tlic street woulcl fill in Ibr him while Iic was OIJ vacation, and vice versa. Mr. C; jonbalaj believed h i l tliis was arrarigecl a m o n g the lwo of them and the sirperviscors. Mr. Gjonbalaj did not h o w whether this individual would bc paid for his services, or whclher the huilding in which Iic worked had llic smic owner Mr. C;jonbalaj \viis nlco uii;iwre of wlictlicr this persoii Iiad li11etl iii fOr his so11duriiig the scvcral clays Icading up to his death. MI-.Gionhalaj also tecti tied h a t about tlic mui-cler, Ihis individual allegedly lnld liiiii i i year afcr that the lock on tlic buildiiig s fronl door ha d 1i ot bc c ~work i ii g . i MI-,(-~.joiibal:i.j testifkt1 tliat, aiiiorig his sori s clutics, was lhitig hroken locks if he could, and tliitt told liiiii 011 oric occuion, ahout tlircc to I oitr inoiilhs prior to the iii~irdcr, \on his tlial the lock on tlic f roiit door was riot locking, thal he constantly liad problems with it, that Iic was fixing it ;ilniost daily, that Iic did not J\riow what to du with it, and t h a ~ tlianh God they rc replacing the door hccausc the apartmenl bui Iding is going co-op I sic], s(o tliat lie \voirld not Iiavc to go crazy. Ci.ionb 211aj s cl cat li . 5 l lieclooi. was not replaced hcforc [* 7] Mi.. (;.ioiibalqj \vas inli)riiied 01 his son s death on the day it occun-cd and immcdi;itely \ w i t to the buildirig. I he pulice wcrc at the hont door, would 1101 let him iii directly t o the police statim for qirestioiiing. The poficc ixsncd it that cloor. and iook liiiii report wlii cli indicated that Marcel his Tmiiincns ( Lmiincns ), a fricnd ol Gj onbalaj s, had inhi-mcd tliem that on the morning ol the murdcr he had gone lo visit Gjonhalaj. Wlicii lie arrived the apartiiicnt door was "opened," and lie ~oirnd C~~jonbiil~ij scvcrcly iiijlirccl and bleedirig on liis bcdrooiii floor. Leiiiiiieiis callcd the police, who declared (l;juiihaloj dead at J J :40 A.M., and caiivasscd thc: buiJclirig with negative rcsitlts. A Siipplemental Cast InI ormtion rcport l rom the City s C hief Medical l ,smiiier s of fice indicates (;jonbalaj was last sccn dive by a ii-icncl, and that smie ii-icnd Ihund liis butly, and tlint the police Iiad not rcporled the c;isc until CSV was aliiiost at tlic scc~ic. l heC hicf Medical hxiuiiiiier s olllcc s initial xcciie investigaliun at rcport nf .luly 28, 2007, reveals tliai the investigator first arrived at tlic scc~ic 4: I7 p.m,; t I i a p ii rt iiicnt u I o oI< ccl o r d c r I y ; I lie ap artni c ii t d our w iL s c I o s ed aii d wcrc closed; tliurc IWS 110 jewelry 1 11 o c he d ; t I 1 c 1 1 w i ndu w s con tlic dcccascd; and beer arid marijuana wcrc fi)itnci con the living I-00111 tiible. I he Mcdical Examiner s photo ofthc allcgd mari.juanii on lhat table had a question marh alier the word marijuana. 1 1 Meclical Fxiniiner s ~ toxicology report fbiiiid iic) drugs C)I- alcohol in the clcccdcnt s kloud or rrriiic. Soon arter the iiiurdcr, MI-. Gionba1a.j coimicnccd this action against only 3 17 Wcsl and tlic C ondomini tiiii. l hesedefendants llicii Coiiiinmced a third-pariy action [* 8] agitiiisl I < our Slar, a i i d Mr. Gjoiiba1:ij then nddcd Four Star S I: ii defeiidmt ~ilsu.Mr. Gjoiiba1;i.j ~ amended coinplaint a1lcgcs lhat tlic dci cndants iicgligently operated, mairilairied, repaired, iiiaiiagcd, controlled, and supcrvised the prcmises, 5tatute:s a n d rcgirlatioiis, inc~itding c a I roperty ~ I ;ind violated $ 23 I (3). NaiiititTs bills and supplcmeiital hills ul particulars are clcvoid of any claim regarding thal xtalute, but add that thc clefeiidaiits hilecl to hiivc properly qxmatiiig lochs in llie lobby; failcd to iliainlain aiicl repair thc lobby s loclcs, or did so ricgligently; failcd to heep tlic li-oiit door closcd; lo aricl pcrmjtted 11ic bui Icliiig s oilier cloc~rs rt.inairi ~iriloched; fiiilcd to propcrly rii~iintain t he b iwcrIi 111erc o i n sy s t em, p rov i d c a dey u at c ii 111 approj7r i ;it c 1y t mi 1 i cd s w I ir i t s 1d-r, aii d 1 y take appropriatc sociirity measurc.s in a cririic-ridden area arid li)r a building lhat h;id beeii s ir b.j ect c cl 1o in I t i p 1c iI c r i i i i i nal i I 1c: i d cii IS. 1 1a i i1 ti ff s p I caclings ;t I s ( ii 11ege t h ii 1 t lie doorman w;is not at tlic front door wlicii the intruder ciitcrcd the lmilding. As to P o w Star, plaintif Ts plcadings also allege that it violated Multiple Dwelling LJW 5 50-a, which iiiiposcs, in connection with ccrtain clms A rnultiplc dwellings, liahi lity on anyone who shall wil Ifully dcstruy, dariingc, or jam cw otherwise iritcrl cre with tlic proper opcralion ol: or rciiiovc, witliwt justification the .self-closing and selflocking duors a i d the bidding s intcrcoiiiiii~rni~~ati~~n or partr tlicrcul: systcm, 7 [* 9] b oiir Star scrved aii answer asscrting cross cl;iiiiis against the C'oiidoiiiiiiiuni and 3 I 7 West souriding in ~ o ~ i i i i i o ~ i - liiiclciiiiiilicatioii aiid cotitribution. 'J'he Condo~iii~iium aw iind 3 I7 West answcl-cd, asserting cross claims against Four Star wuiiding in coiiiiiion- 1a :I 11t 1 cciiitrac tu a 1 inder 111i i fi cii t iot i , c o i i t r i b ut ion, an d b rca ch of ai 1 ii 11c ged cc)11 r :c t t C) w t i procurc iris~rraiicefor the protcclioii or the C'ondominium and 3 17 West. A t his deposition, Mr. C+.joiibnlaj IcstiGed that he did not know wliether, on the day h i ? sori ivns l~illcd, locks on the building's front and bach do(ors, :iild his the apnrtiiicnt door were worlcing. (71- h t h e r i XOII'S his soli wab murclercd by ii bidding resident, g u ~ s tor hy i111 intriider. I IC also did not know i f tlic inlcrcoiii/hu/7~1. , systcm was opcriit ive wheri his sori was itiurdcrcd, ;uid wliethcr Ihc li-oiIt door and the apartmcnl c l o o r l i d bccn lbrcecl (opcii. 17iirtlicr3 (iionbalqj indicated that hc Jackcd hnoivledgc o l ' a ~ y Mr. prior criminnl activity in thc building. Additionally, he tcstillctl that Iic did not know I ,ciii~iic~is. ( ;sjo~ihalatcsli lied that hc was iinnwm of':rnyone who Iiad Ihreateiicd his MI-. j soil or wit11 ivlioiii lic h i i d any fights, ant1 that was told by the policc that they lincl I'oirnd a gun m d e r h i 4 w n ' s matlrcss m d 21 i'cw empty bags of inarijuanii on a lahlc apartment. HT)~YC\U-, policc rcport madc the IIO Hof'liiinn tcsli iicd that con a givcn dny, in tlircc chormeii 011 iii his mention o f that gun, ;L 24-hour pcriod, thcrc wouIcl have beeti duty. I Io~linariicleiitificd thc tlirce doorinen wlio w o r l d nt tlic huilding during the h i e of C;.jonbala.j's niurder, but could not specify who worhed which sil'l the day ol' the iniirder. Slic spoke lo several of tlieiii tlint diiy its to whetlicr they liad x [* 10] seen anything, bul coiilcl not reriiciiibcr their responses. Hoftiiiaii, hereafter, testificd that motlicr individual lid bccri assigriccl to worh at tlic building at tlia lime, and that it took iiiore than three peoplc lo staKtlie premises. Hoffiiian also testiiied that b o w Star iievcr inissed a shift at the preiniscs. I I ~ l l i i ~also Icsti!:ed a~i that shc Iiad no contact pcrson at the prcniises and ilia1 all her clcalings were with Samson, particularly ai cniployec tinmcd Gregoiy, presuinably meaning 1I:iyc. She could not remer-riherhaving ;t conversation with (~~joiibal~i~j, hiit hclicvcd she iiiiglit have mot him tlie one tiriic shc visited tlic premises. She dit1 not recall any prior incident at thc prciiiises, iicor had c o I i i p 1ii i 11t s ii b ou t I 011 r qlic rcccived, before thc mrirder, any S t :i I- s port ers/door111c 11. P r i OF t c) (1;. j (on ha I ai s iiiirrd cr, I I oliiii a i was not told that the tiuilcliiig s locks wcre inoperablc. She did riot know ii tlic roar door lock w x working at tlic tiiiic 01 thc iii~ii-der, Iiayc testificcl that Iic hsd contact with Gjoiilxil~ij 1 p)erliaps once :I week. 1Iaye did not recal I wlietlicr lic had received aiiy coiiiplaints about the doormcn and did not i.ecal I this p r i i w l a r huilrliiig with rcspcct to tlic cloormeii. ITc coiild not recall whether Iic lint1 rcccivod, prior lo the iniirdcr. any comp1:iints to whctlicr Gjonbdaj told h i i n that ;i h t ) 1 leiiaiiis, and h a d no rccollcction as doorinan had been away from his post for a long tiiiio, or that fiont or liack cloorx had broken 1 0 ~ 1 ~ s . also testified h i iftlicrc wits Haye complaiiit about ; doomiaii i it it \vo~ilclgo to tlic supcrintcndciit and tlieri, if ncudcd. to hiin. [* 11] 'I'hc Condomini iiiii and 3 17 West riow seck ;iii order granting them s u ~ i i ~ l l i ~ r y jwlgiiicrit disiiiissing thc compliiint, I Iiese dcfciidants argue that because Mr. (i.io1lhal:i.j did not liiiow how thc assailant entered the bui Idiiig, lie callnot dcnlonslrate that dolkiidnnts' :illcged negligence w:is ;I cause of his sori's cieatli. Thc C'ondoii~iiiiuiiiand 3 17 West also assert that plaiiilil'l'c~innuts11mv whether the assailant r;atlicr than ii teniirit or a ~CII;III~'S guest, WIS i i ~ intruder, i ;ind tlict-ci'orc cannot clemonstrak that any negligence with respect to snl'cguarding (lie building's entrywnys was : I cause of his son's dcalh. Furtlicr, iri light ol'he police's allcgcd discovery ofniarisjuma and n gun, these movants suggcst that (hc mirrderer may well have been m i i e o ~ i c who was visiting C+joribalaj for drug relatoil activitics involving his own crirninal condiict. 'Thc Condominitiin and 3 I 7 Wcst also assorl that plaintiff has addwecl no cvidcnce that they violntccl Rual Property Law $ 23 I (2), aiid iliainlain thal the record is dcvoid 01. ~ I I J prior ~/ criininal activity in 111el>uilding, wliicli would give rise to ii duty to ;idopt addiliond security meiisiires. 1 hcy hrthcr note that Mr. (tjonhalaj was unaware of any such u-iiiiinal activily. '14ie C'oiidoniiniuiii and 3 17 Wcst also argue that they had 110 notice of' any prior criminal activity 011 [lie premises or i n tlic immcdi;ite area, and 11x1 received n o ccmplniiits of such activity. Abscnl m y cvideiicc ul'crimjnnl aclivily, they arguc that thcy wcrc not required to provide a n y enhanced security, aiicl accordingly dischnrged their duty hy allegedly Imviclirig tlic requisilc sccurity, ii;iiiicIy, locking doors, ;ill illt ercom sy5tem, atid 24-11our security , 10 [* 12] 11 [* 13] has no personal knowledge c ~ this issue, because she wiis not at the building, and hecause i I T o m Star has not provided UJY sworn testjiiiony from any one of its cinployecs who were at the building around the tiine i n issue. As to causation, plaintiK asserls Ihat his testimony regarding his soli having told hiiii about the lotigstaiidiiig problem with the fi-ont door loch, wliicli was l o be rcnicdied oiice thc apxtiiiciit b c w i i e a co-op, his testimony aboirt tlic sirpcrintericlent iicrc~ss the slrucl haviiig told hiin irhoi~t I~i-ul~e11 door lock, the newspaper article rcporling thc rroiit that Icnmls liad iridicatcd that tlic ii-ont door lock had bee11 inoperable for B week, and the I:iict thal (-;.joiilxdaj had been l i ~ u n di l l his bedroom, shot in the back, and wcaring no sliocs, sodis. or shirt, is sulllcieiit lo raise it11 issuc as to whethcr tlic ll-unt lock \vas ctefcctivie, the clefcridants Iind iioticc ol it, and wlietlicr such defect w i s ;I proxiinato GILISC uf Gjonlxihj s death In oppxitioii to tlic C ond~~niinium s 3 17 Wcst s clniin llint p l a i n t i f ~ l m and fiiilcd to demn~i.strn~c there 11x1 bccn prior criiniiial activity of ii sjniilnr type or iinturc on the that prciiiises, plainti i l maintains that this argument is without rncril, arid that ( h e x clcf iiidants had actual arid constructive notice of tlic front door lock s clefcct. and that ;in inlrtrder c o d d enter, arid commil ii crime. Plaiiitiil also observes that, siniply because the policc nnd Medical Ikiinincr s ol llce s docimcnts hiled to iriclicatc ihal Illere was ;i forccd cnlry, does not cscludc the possibility that tlicrc hud becn :I forcccl cntry. 12 [* 14] In reply, Four Slar claiiiis that, irrespective o r whcther thcrc was cvidence that the front door lock \viis broken, Mr. Gjmi1xd:i.j hiled to dcmorlstralc that it is inorc I ikcly tlian not that thc- inurclcrcr had been ;in inlrucler, m d , thus, has L d e d to show tliat any allegedly brolicn loch was a proxim;ite cause ol'his son's death. Four Star also notes that the Medical Examiner's docuiiicnts indicate that the apartment door was unloclied. The C'ondoiniiiiuin nnd 3 17 Wcst a d d that plaintiff, in his opposing papers, has [ailed to show thal they liad notice o f m y prior criininnl activity in thc building or its vicinity, or that the lionl cloor lock was hrokcn. 'l'he C'nndominiun~ and 3 17 Wcst inaintniii that the contents of ii newspaper nrticlc and what Mr. Ci.jonba Inj's so11and the siiperii~tcndent from x r o s s Ihe strccl allegedly told him ahout thc lock are Iicarsay Disc 11ss io 11 A m v i iiit scc I< i ng s ~ i i m ary .iIId gmen t i 111 1 111st 1 make ii p r it77 rr ,f k ' i o sliow ing of cntitleiiieiit to *ji]dgiiientas a inlitter of law, ot'l'cring sufficiciil evidcncc to eliminate any mnterial issues ol'I:trct, Winugrnd v. Now York llfiiv. Med (-'tr., 64 N.Y.2d 85 1 , 853 ( 1985). Once a showing has becii iiiudc, the burden shills to the npposiing parly who I I I L I S ~ then demonstrate tlic existence of n trinhlc issue ol' fact. Rhirrr~~s Pro,spect Ho,sp , hX v N.Y.2d 320, 324 (1986); %iicX.crn1r7~1 C'iti, of Nt.w I'ork. 49 N . Y .2d 557 ( 1980). Whcrc v. [lie proponcnt iiiils to meet this burdcii, the motioii should be deiiicd cvcii if the papers opposition arc inadcqiiale. Pristorizr7 v Strrte of NPMI Yon+, 108 A.D.2d 605 ( I '' Dcpt, 1985). (hi a motion for siriminry judgmcnt the testiinony of the n~miioving party is 13 iii [* 15] 14 [* 16] uriidciitified assailant attacked her in lucks). ii b d d i n g with I history I of crime niid inoperable 1 T 10 withstand a motion lor siiiiiiiiniy judgment, the plaiiitilT riccd riot prow proximate cawe hy a prcpoiidcrmx ol the cvidcncc but, aswining that the cielellclant has met its priiiiii hcic burden, i i e d only raise it lrjablc issuc of Lict as to prosiiiiatc cause. k f 1 1 0 / l ~ L ,L C - ~ , ~ 78 ~ . r 1 . 3 d 798. ai Tu meet its prima facie birrdcri in such a casc, thc deleiidanls are requircd to establish ihai the teliaiit s ilijurics were iiot proximately c;ilrsecl by their iiegligcncc, and, if thcy hil to incet this hurdcn, their motion must be denied w i t l i ~ ) ~ t rcgnril to the adequacy of the plaintill s opposirig papers. Mzcorig, at 798-799; Scliiwtw v Fivt. G. A,s.soc~ IdLC , , S h A.D.3d 260 (1 Dept 2008) (dcfcndants met their prima facie birrderi by showing thnl cloor 1ocI~s were worhing, that tlicrc wcrc 110 carlier crirniiial a d s , and h a t tlicrc wiis CL Iach of- evidence that p e r m i who assaiiltcd plaiiitilT was an intruder); AIvurez v. M~/.srxryk I) T(IWCI S C urp., 15 A.l.I.3d 428, 429 (2d Dcpt ZOOS). liiitjally, it slioulcl bc noted that pIaintilT1i:is hilecl to nicntion Real t ropcrty Law 5 23 1 ( 2 ) in hi, which w o d d bill (~fparticulars. not set li,rtli any facts i i i his bills or particulars did ~0171e witliiii that statulc, :ind did not ;iddress or d j s p t c [he C ondoiiiinium aiid 3 I7 Wcsl s asscrlion that there is 110 eviderice that clefciidan~s,under tlint stalulc, knowingly Icascd or gavc possession ol a~iypart o f the building lbr any uiilawfiil trade, ninnul~~rclirrc, birsincss or knowingly perinitt[edJ the saiiic to bc so irsed. It, thus, or ap17c;irs that pIaiiitifT has abaiidoncd m y such claim. 1s [* 17] 1 o tlic cstenl that the C oticl~~iiii~iii~iii3 17 West argue that ~ l i c y iincl werc riot rccluircd to provide m y eiihaiiccd secirrily iiiciisiires hccarrse thcrc was iio cvicleiicc uf criiiiinnl activity on tlie prcmises or i i i the iiniiiecliatc vicinity, s~rcli asscrtioii is wilhout merit, bccaiise Ihcsc i i i o v a i i ~ s liavc hiled to rcfitte ilic plciiclings al1cg;itions or such criminal nciivity, md, as prwioiisly noted, it is their burden, in the h s t instance, to clcmonslralc tlie lnck of prior acts of criiiiindity. L Tchi~is/or, AL13d at 260. 56 I Tayc hiled to rciiitc s w h al Icgalion, and, hccatrse it is iinclenr when he starlcd working fbr Sainsoii, aiid his deposition lcstimoiiy S L I ~ ~ C S tLh t a1 best tliat lie startcd S employment iiiiiiicdiatcly before the mirrder occurrcd, it cannol be said that he has s~icli any I\nowledgc of the building s prior criiiiirial activity, iior did he testifji 013 this ~xirljc~ilar issire. l hal Hoi fiiian lcstified that she did not rcciill aiiy prior iiicidciits does nol conslit uie aii uncq~iivocaldenial of thcrc having bccn any iiicicfcnts, and, if sirch iiicidcnt did not iiivolvc Foirr Star s eiiiployees duties, it is mclenr whether she woirld have Icarncd ol iany prior criminal aclivity at the building. Furtlicr, 110 evidence lias hccn pr-oviclcd from m y l+ourStar ~,orlcrldooniini~ 1 this issirc. 01 16 [* 18] It1 aclditioti, the Condominium alid 3 I7 Wust have provided IN) evidence dernoiistrating thut tlic building s intercoiii/buz~ersystem and ull of its exterior door loclc? wcrc operational and had been propcrly maintained at the time or (I~~jotibalaj s inurder. I his issuc was raisccl in philitiff s plcadings, both Ilayc thesc issues. burther, iis ;tiicl Tloffman werc silenl 011 prcviously notcd, thc record is unclear iis to whun Hayc: c ~ ~ ~ i i i ~his~cmployiiicnts with Sailism, and no alljdnvit Iias becn prcsentcd li-om Iiim ~ iced or his predecessor 1 hc 011 any of the foregoing issues. ~ C 7 i i d C ) i 3 7 i i i i i i i i iand entry, bccxisc the police aiid 3 I7 West claim that thcrc is no evideiicc of any forced Medical I 3xarniricr s do,cumcl?ts did riot ~iientiona lbrccd eiilry. I Towevcr, in order to cstablish n prima facie showing, it is lheir burdun to cslablixli tliat there is iio evidence oi a forced entry by admissible evidence. l hat tlic police and Mecl i cii 1 I Ix a m n cr s c) rficc s rc colds i I i d i cii t ed lli at tli c i t p art 111en t (1 17 c) r was it 11egcdly i opcnecl by 1 x ~ i l ~ i i e n s was [mlocked is unr~vailing,bccarisc and IIC) af lidavit has been provided by T,cnmcns 011 the condition o1 1hedoor, and because it is iiiiclear wliat ;in assailanl niay have donc to tlic dcmr lock after entering and before leaving the apartmcnl. Moreover, the conlentx of the police and Medical I?xamiricr s records ;ire Iic;irsny to the cstent tlint they are 17nscd on wh:it I ,ciiiiiieiis might have dircctly or iridirwtly lold lhe1n. L5 cjc S Ilrtc Fc//.ll1 M//Il/L// Allto 111s C O t). Lt/rzLqrs//. 8 A.Ll.3~1 I 860, 862 (2d 1)cp t 2005): S ; 1 ~ 7 s e v 11.~ unit^^/ I c ~ l ~ l c SU-V.,18 I A.D.2cl 52 1 , 524 (1 Tlcpt 1992). 17 [* 19] As t tic lmcllord arid iiianaging agent, the C'ondoiiiiniurn m c l 3 17 West should Ii;-tvcbeer1 able to ;iscei-t;iin iund put into the record wiielller the lochs arid intercum systcm were working cm thc day of ~joiilialaj'siinirder, and whether tlicre was m y sign of a I'orced cntry. They fail, Cor examplc, to present any evidence or testimony that their sccurity I I I ~ ~ L S L Iwerc in worki1ig order that day. rhcy siiiiildy fail to presciil any ~CS evidcncc that tlicy did not have to replace or repair tlic qmrtmcnt door or ils lock, hec;Iiisc tlicre \vas (I I " ; i Inck of'a h ~ - c c entiy. S'w d Hcxtrzpfon H O U S E ,I87 A.D.2d 325 ~, Dept 1992) (where npartiiient showed T ~ signs or rorced entry, plaintil'f coirld not O denioiistratc h i 1 dccodenl's dciith ii Pcig(7t7 v ~ 7 . g WIS 11iore likely caused by intruder). Ti' tlierc hac1 bcen forced cntry, B j u r y could conclude that the mrrrdcr wiis carried oirt by soiiieoric othcr t 11; 11 i i t cii a it , b c GI I I 1s e as t he s I ci-inl e 1cl ciit , C;j o i i h ii I aj pr cs ~ i mI-,a1y w 011 Id 1iav c rp 1 1.euogni7ed : tenant and opciicd his apartment door for that tenant. I 'l'lic birrden is 011 defcndaiits to establish that tlicre is no evidence tliat the assailant was an intruder. S ' c h i ~ s t ~ ~ A.11.3~1 260; s w r d c o hluoirg, 78 A.D.3cl at 708. Because 56 i ~ ~ a( d e k i i d n n t s havu liiiletl to dcmonstratc Ihe lack of a forced cntry, thcy h w c not riict thcir titirileii iii h i , s rcspcct. I )cfcndants' suggestion, lhat C; jonbalaj death was the result of Ilcgal drug dealing, has not liccri siibstantiat ed, and has no sirpport in the record. 1 1 partic ilnr, tlic policc 1 report did riot inention a giin possessed I-,y Cijuiibalaj, md no al'ljdavits have been ~. provided G.oin myone indicating that Gjonbal;ij was cvcr vuspccted of drug activity based 18 [* 20] upon the naturc :id rirriiiber o f his visilors. FuI-tlicr,having a stiiall clirnri~ityol inarijLiana does nut sigiiiQ that oiic w;i\ a dcalcr. Also, defendants Iinvc subinittcd 110 record of any scieiitilic analysis of thc substaricc, which even tlic Mcdical r:xaminer s olllicc was iiiisurc w;i s 111 ariJu a iiii . In light oftlic foregoing, and the h c l that the C oiidorniiii~rin 3 17 West s atid riiolion j\ largcly based at tlieir pointing ;it gaps iii the plaiiitift s proof, Zhcse clcfcnduritc liavc hiled to mcct their p r h a fiicic burdeii on this iiiotioii. l3ccause the C oiidoiiiiniuiii and 3 17 West havc hiled to makc a priiiin facie showing that [here wcrc no prior criiniiial acts thc birilding, that tlic sccurity ~iieiisi~rcs opcratioixd, and that thcrc was no were iii eviclcncc that the assailaiil was ai1 jntrudcr, these defciidanis motion li)r pni-tial sii~iirii;iry judgnieril i m s t hc, aiid hcrcby is, dciiicd, irrespectivc of tlie a d c q u x y o r MI-. Gjoiihalijj s papers, Foirr Star lias also t i l e d to priiria fiicic establisli its right to suiiiiiiiiry ,judgment. birst, i t has wholly I ailcd to acldrcss the issue of its allegecl violatiun of Multiple rlwclling Law $ 50-a. Iii particdar, it does iiot claim that the statute is inapplicnblc to the huildiiig. Further, Four Star has not provided any afiidavits froiii any of its employccs or former cmpluqees, wlio worlccd Lit tlic biiildiiig, iiidicaling, with respcct to any of tlic buildiiig s three doors arid intercom system, 11ia1 its ciiiployccs did iiot Lbwilll iilly destroy, daiiiagc, or .jam or oljlerwisu intcri crc with the propul- opc~-ation or reiimvc any ofthc locks or ol, htercoiii system, or m y of their parts, Multiple Llwelliiig TAW 5 50-n [5]; cf Ruty:om v [* 21] Hirniilton Hrrll K c j u l t y , 25 1 A.Jl.2d 391, 392 (2d Dcpl 1998). hcrc wherc the doolnie~i/portcrs, aiiiung o t l w things, used the back eiitryway to reiiiovc the residcnts garhage, and niariiicd the h i t doorwny, and wlicrc the cvideiicc docs not estitblisli that intruders were unablc 10 ;iccess tlic I-ciiror the building Ilirougli the side allcyway or ~Iir(jtig11 y opeiiiiig or gate 11iel-cmay have becii in the rear leiicing. m Second, 1:oirr Star has fiiilcd to prima Fxie denioiistralc that, as a conlrclctor, it owed Gionhnla~j110 duly. In geiicral, ii contractual duly done to 1nainl;titi prcniiscs will not give rise to tort liability in h v o r of a third parly. /ispi/ilil v. Mc~lvillc ,Yr rlow C o/itr:v., 98 N.Y.2d 136, I38 (2002). Nonethclcss, 21 duly of-care to :I lhiid party will arisc where 1) tlic contractiiig party lias cntirely displaced aiiollier s duty to sal cly inaintain premises, 2) 11ic plaintiff has rclicd to liis/Iier dctrimcnt on the contracting party s continued jmloiniancc of its dirties, 01- 3 ) ~vlicrc contracting party has iiegligcntly launchc~d ii tlic j h r c c o r instritiiienl of liarin. Id. ;it 141 (interlid citation and quotation miarlis omitled). MI-.Gjoiib:ilaj s claim that his son wits a third-party bcnefkiary uiidcr Four Stw- s ccwlrnct with Samson, aiid was thcreli)re, owed a cluty by it, is without merit, hecnusc bour Star did not cspressly assunic any protective cluty eiiforccablc by thc tcnants. AnoA.yc 17 7, 2411 E. 175 ,Yt. H o i ~ sI1cv. F r r d C OY ~)., 16 A.11.3d 287, 288 ( I I k p t ZOOS). Additioiially, Mr. C~jonbal:ij Ihils lo dispute bour Star s xscrtioii that Cijnnba1;ij did not rely c)ii that m i t r a c l to his dctrimeiit, liere wlicrc thc doorincn were not always at their posts, becausc they also tiinctioned as porters. Nor docs plaintilr dispute Four Star s 20 [* 22] IIowever, tlic pleadings nllcgc ihal I;oLrr Ylar perinitled tllc huilding s doors to reinain ~rrilochcdand that Four Star violatcd the Multiple Llwulling Law hi1urc.s on the ~ (~rtci-s//doonneri s t l o he present at thcir post, lock pr others, or to rcport it ii 5 SO-a, Any cfoor lcfl open by brolceii lock would not constitutc the launching ol a forcc: or inslruiiicnt of Ixtrin, becausc the neccssary afljriiiativc act would bc missing. S w C hzirr/i 11 (- dIuriui//nciir,s., 99 N.Y.2d 104, I 1 1-1 12 (2002); Me,s/cr. 17. PODfl IdLC , 80 A.D.3d 1533, IS35 (4 Lkpt 201 I ) (f:iilLire to sal1 sidewalk ins~rrficient impose duly to third to party, bccaiise it niercly constitirted tlic ijiilirre to d o good); Bnitcrkiri v. S ultmtiori ATIW, 74 A.D.3d 8 5 1, 8% (2d rlcpl 20 IO). Non~.lheless,f a Four Star ci~iployt.e, cxmplc, i for disahlcd ii lock to pcrform chores such :is giirbagc rcinoval, and failcd to relock exterior door, h i t would not only wnstitutc : violation i ;in oi Multiple Dwelling Law 8 50-21 ( S ) , if applicabk, but could conslitutc: the launching of a forcc or instrument or h:inn. l h e plendiiigs. whcii broadly read, c;m be coiistrucd as Fo~rr Star having lauiichcd an insti-umcnl o1 11arn1. Hecausc: Four Star has not prima facic climinnled tlic claims that its employccs violated the Mrrlliplc Dwelling I .aw and permitted tlic buildiiig q doors to rcmain imlocked, it Iias failed to cleaioiistratc that it did not owc Cijonbahj 21 B duty. Sw [* 23] (contractor requirc-d to prima hncic show that it did not create I N worsc~i cli~rigcrous i1 condition, arid that btirclen was not met wlicrc its employecs lackcd m y rccollection as io their aclivities o i i the rclcvant clays). F(0ur Star lias iilso failed to prcscnt admissible cvi d ciice aft?r m ii t ivc I y dc iiiorist rii t ir g t 11 a 1 there w ii s no forced c i i try into C ij 011 13ii 1ai ' s ap;irtiiient. Four Siar Iias, under tlic circuiiis~anccs preseritcd, hiled 10 show that tlicre is lack ol'evidcncc that the ;issailant wiis an intruder. Accordingly, F o ~ i Star's motion i s r cl e ti i cd , clenicd; md it is liirtlier OIWEIII3D lhat 'J'he Wcst 89"' Strcct C'oridominiuni and 3 I7 Wcst 89"' Street LLC' C/O Sariisoii Management's iiiotiori (scq. 110. 008) for an ordcr granting tliem partial L) at ed : New York, New York .I11ly 16, 2010 I1N T E IC: 22

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.