Summary
In Levin v. Eleto Realty Corp. (160 Misc. 141) the court held: Evidence held insufficient to justify judgment for tenant against landlord for loss of property from burglary on ground that failure of landlord to supply new lock or other moldings on door was proximate cause for loss which occurred, or that loss could have been reasonably anticipated so as to impose further duty on landlord to repair condition complained of.
Summary of this case from Tirado v. LubarskyOpinion
March 6, 1936.
Appeal from the Municipal Court of City of New York, Borough of Manhattan, Seventh District.
Miller Caniell, for the appellant.
E. Lawrence Levin, for the respondent.
The facts presented do not justify a holding that the failure of the landlord to supply a new lock or to supply other mouldings on the door was the proximate cause for the loss which occurred. The evidence does not establish that the loss in the manner testified to could have been reasonably anticipated so as to impose further duty to repair the condition complained of.
Judgment reversed, with thirty dollars costs, and complaint dismissed on the merits.
All concur. Present — LYDON, HAMMER and FRANKENTHALER, JJ.