Filed Date: 10/11/1994
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 10/31/2024
In a negligence action to recover damages for wrongful death and personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hutcherson, J.), entered December 23, 1991, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the motion for summary judgment is denied.
The events surrounding the incident are for the most part not in dispute. On September 30, 1982, Sophia returned to her ground floor apartment after school and, by looking through the peephole from outside the door, discovered that Lang was inside the apartment. She did not enter the apartment but waited outside the building for Bertram. When Bertram arrived home, the children entered the apartment and found no one there, although the door to a dumbwaiter shaft had been broken off its hinges and a couple of items had been stolen. The dumbwaiter was not operational, but the shaft contained ropes and was open from the basement to the roof. Access to the shaft could be gained from a door in the basement which had not been permanently sealed.
Bertram contacted the superintendent, who closed the dumbwaiter door in the apartment and instructed the children to remain inside the apartment and to lock the apartment door. The superintendent asserted that he shut the dumbwaiter door in the apartment and "put three nails in there temporarily”. Minutes after the superintendent left the plaintiff’s apartment, Lang broke through the dumbwaiter door and attacked the children with a knife. Sophia managed to escape from the apartment but Bertram was killed. About two months prior to this incident, the plaintiff had contacted the police because Lang entered her apartment through an open window and punched Sophia in the face.
The plaintiff sought to recover damages, inter alia, on the ground that the superintendent negligently performed an assumed duty to the children. To prevail on this theory, the plaintiff would be required to show that the superintendent undertook to perform a service, that he performed the service negligently, and that his conduct in undertaking the service placed the children in a more vulnerable position than if he had never taken any action at all (see, e.g., Heard v City of New York, 82 NY2d 66, 72-73; Nallan v Helmsley-Spear, Inc., 50 NY2d 507, 522).
We conclude that the evidence in the record establishes that