In this action, plaintiff alleges that she was assaulted by a masked and hooded man in the 20th floor corridor leading to her apartment in the building owned and managed by defendants. Plaintiff asserts a negligent security claim against defendants based on her allegation that the building's front door lock was broken for some time prior to the incident and that the building had a side door that was propped open during the day.
"Landlords have a `common-law duty to take minimal precautions to protect tenants from foreseeable harm,' including a third party's foreseeable criminal conduct" (Burgos v Aqueduct Realty Corp., 92 N.Y.2d 544, 548 , quoting Jacqueline S. v City of New York, 81 N.Y.2d 288, 293-294 ). However, an injured tenant may recover damages "only on a showing that the landlord's negligent conduct was a proximate cause of the injury" (Burgos, 92 NY2d at 548). A defendant seeking summary judgment in a negligent security case may meet its initial burden by presenting evidence that the locks to the building's exterior entrances, as well as an intercom system, were in operable condition at the time of the assault (see Alvarez v Masaryk Towers Corp., 15 A.D.3d 428, 429 [2d Dept 2005]). The plaintiff then "must raise triable issues of fact as to whether it was more likely than not that the assailants were intruders who gained access to the premises through the negligently-maintained entrance" (Chunn v New York City Hous. Auth., 83 A.D.3d 416, 417 [1st Dept 2011]), because "even a fully secured entrance would not keep out another tenant" (Burgos, 92 NY2d at 550).
Defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint should have been granted. Defendants established, through plaintiff's and other witness testimony, that the building's front and side door locks were operable on the day of the incident, that they had no notice of any problems in the building prior to the incident, and that the area around the building was calm and not dangerous.
In opposition, plaintiff failed to raise an issue of fact sufficient to defeat defendants' motion. While plaintiff raised an issue of fact as to whether the building's entrance doors were operable on the day of the incident, plaintiff failed to raise an