Opinion
2003-00148.
Decided January 20, 2004.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Bernstein, J.), dated November 22, 2002, which granted the motion of the defendant New York City Housing Authority for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it.
Lambos Junge, New York, N.Y. (Cheehoon Jun of counsel), for appellants.
Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman Dicker, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Cynthia Nuegebauer, Meredith Drucker, and Richard E. Lerner of counsel), for respondent.
Before: ROBERT W. SCHMIDT and REINALDO E. RIVERA, JJ.
DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
A landlord has no duty to prevent one tenant from attacking another tenant unless it has the authority, ability, and opportunity to control the actions of the assailant ( see Adelstein v. Waterview Towers, 250 A.D.2d 790, 791; Siino v. Reices, 216 A.D.2d 552, 553; Johnson v. Slocum Realty Corp., 191 A.D.2d 613, 614-615; Blatt v. New York City Hous. Auth., 123 A.D.2d 591, 592). Here, the landlord's power to evict the assailant did not furnish it "with a reasonable opportunity or effective means to prevent or remedy [the assailant's] unacceptable conduct, since the incident giving rise to the injuries sustained, and indeed, the pattern of harassment alleged by the plaintiff, arose from a purely personal dispute between the two individuals [citations omitted]" ( Blatt v. New York City Hous. Auth., supra at 593; see also Firpi v. New York City Hous. Auth., 175 A.D.2d 858, 859). Moreover, under the circumstances presented, the assault upon the injured plaintiff was not foreseeable ( see Firpi v. New York City Hous. Auth., supra at 859; see also Adelstein v. Waterview Towers, supra at 791; Hughes v. City of New York, 238 A.D.2d 477; Perry v. Northwestern Realty Co., 236 A.D.2d 378). Accordingly, the landlord's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it was properly granted.
The plaintiffs' remaining contentions are without merit.
SANTUCCI, J.P., KRAUSMAN, SCHMIDT and RIVERA, JJ., concur.