New York Personal Injury Lawyer Blog 24/7
In Scurry v. New York City Housing Authority, 2023 NY Slip Op 02752, the New York Court of Appeals addressed an issue that arises in many premises liability cases: whether a landlord may be held responsible when a tenant is injured or killed by a criminal who gains access to a building through a door with a broken lock. The case involved two separate incidents at New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA) properties. In both cases, the victims were attacked by individuals who entered residential buildings through doors that allegedly did not lock properly.
NYCHA argued that it should not be held liable because the attacks were directed at specific victims. The Court of Appeals rejected that argument and ruled that the claims should proceed to trial. The decision reinforced the principle that property owners have a duty to provide basic security measures and that questions about causation are often for a jury to decide.
Background Facts
The first case involved Bridget Crushshon, a resident of a NYCHA housing complex. Her former intimate partner, Walter Boney, entered the building and attacked her in the hallway outside her apartment. He set her on fire, causing her death. Her son was also injured while attempting to help her.
The second case involved Tayshana Murphy, an 18-year-old resident of another NYCHA housing complex. Murphy became involved in a dispute connected to individuals from a nearby housing development. One night, Murphy and several friends entered her building while two men approached. Surveillance footage showed the men first attempting to enter through a locked entrance. When they could not gain access, they tried another door that allegedly failed to lock properly. They entered through that door and encountered Murphy in the stairwell. She was shot and killed.
In both cases, lawsuits were filed against NYCHA. The plaintiffs alleged that NYCHA failed to maintain functioning locks on exterior doors and failed to provide the level of security required for tenant safety.
NYCHA sought summary judgment, arguing that the attacks were targeted and that the actions of the assailants, rather than any security failure, caused the deaths.
Question Before the Court
Whether NYCHA could avoid liability as a matter of law because the attacks were directed at specific victims.
More specifically, the court had to determine whether a targeted criminal attack automatically broke the chain of causation between a landlord’s failure to maintain building security and the injuries suffered by tenants.
The court also considered whether the plaintiffs had presented enough evidence to create factual disputes that should be decided by a jury rather than dismissed before trial.
Court’s Decision
The Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the plaintiffs.
The court affirmed the denial of summary judgment in the Scurry case and reversed the grant of summary judgment in the Murphy case. As a result, both negligence claims were allowed to proceed toward trial.
The court held that a targeted attack does not automatically eliminate a landlord’s liability. Instead, ordinary negligence principles apply.
According to the court, a defendant’s conduct may still be considered a proximate cause of an injury if it was a substantial factor in bringing about the harm. The court explained that the purpose of locking exterior doors is to prevent intruders from entering buildings and harming residents. When an intruder enters through a door that allegedly was not functioning properly, a jury may reasonably conclude that the lack of security contributed to the attack.
The court also stated that questions about what might have happened if the doors had been working properly were factual issues for a jury.
Discussion
The decision is important because it clarified how New York courts analyze premises liability claims involving criminal acts committed by third parties.
Property owners often argue that the criminal conduct of another person was the sole cause of an injury. While criminal acts can sometimes break the chain of causation, the Court of Appeals explained that this is not automatically true.
The court relied on prior decisions recognizing that landlords have a duty to take reasonable steps to protect tenants from foreseeable criminal conduct. One of the most basic security measures is maintaining functioning locks on exterior entrances.
The court noted that the very reason landlords are required to provide secure entrances is to prevent unauthorized individuals from entering buildings and harming residents. Therefore, when an intruder gains access through a defective door and commits a crime, the resulting harm may be closely connected to the landlord’s failure to maintain security.
In the Murphy case, surveillance footage showed the attackers trying a locked entrance before successfully entering through another door that allegedly did not lock. The court found that a jury could reasonably conclude that a functioning lock might have delayed or prevented the attack.
Similarly, in the Crushshon case, a jury could determine whether a properly secured entrance would have prevented the attacker from reaching the victim.
The court rejected NYCHA’s argument that the attackers’ determination to harm the victims automatically severed the causal connection. The court explained that deciding whether a criminal would have succeeded despite a functioning lock often involves factual questions that juries are tasked with resolving.
The decision also addressed notice. In the Murphy case, evidence suggested that residents had complained about the door and that maintenance records contained inconsistencies. The court found that factual disputes existed regarding whether NYCHA knew or should have known about the defective lock.
As a result, the court concluded that summary judgment was inappropriate.
This ruling serves as a reminder that property owners, landlords, and housing authorities may face liability when they fail to maintain basic security measures. When evidence exists that a defective lock allowed an intruder to enter a building, courts are often reluctant to dismiss claims before a jury has the opportunity to evaluate the facts.
Conclusion
The Court of Appeals’ decision in Scurry v. New York City Housing Authority reinforced longstanding principles of New York premises liability law. The court held that a targeted attack does not automatically relieve a landlord of responsibility when an intruder gains access through an allegedly unsecured entrance. Instead, questions about whether a defective lock contributed to the attack are generally issues for a jury to decide.
The ruling confirmed that landlords have a duty to provide basic security measures and that claims involving broken locks and criminal attacks should be carefully examined based on the facts of each case. For tenants and visitors injured because of inadequate security, the decision provides guidance on how New York courts evaluate negligence and causation.
If you or a loved one suffered injuries due to unsafe property conditions, contact an experienced New York premises liability lawyer to discuss your legal rights and potential claims. An experienced New York premises liability lawyer can evaluate the circumstances of the incident, determine whether a property owner failed to provide reasonable security, and help pursue compensation for injuries and losses.