Can You Sue a Property Owner After an Assault in New York?
Yes, in many cases. New York property owners must take minimal precautions against crimes they can reasonably foresee, and an owner whose security failure let an attacker in can be held responsible for the injuries.
In a negligent security case in New York, a property owner can be held liable for an assault when the attack was reasonably foreseeable, and the owner failed to take minimal precautions that would likely have prevented it. Owners are not responsible for every crime on their property.
They can be responsible when broken locks, dark stairwells, empty guard posts, or ignored warnings give a criminal the opening. Washor Kool Sosa Maiorana & Schwartz, LLP offers free consultations to people attacked on someone else's property and can explain whether a claim may be possible.
Schedule a Free Case Evaluation
Key Takeaways for Negligent Security in New York
Here is what matters most in a New York negligent security claim:
- An owner can be liable when an assault was reasonably foreseeable, and the owner skipped minimal precautions, such as working entrance locks.
- Prior crimes in the same building or complex are usually the strongest proof that an attack was foreseeable.
- The injured person must show the security failure let the attacker in or made the attack possible, but does not have to identify the attacker.
- Claims against a public entity such as the New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA) generally require a notice of claim within 90 days of the attack.
What Do You Need to Prove in a New York Negligent Security Case?
A negligent security claim is a negligence case with a criminal act at the center. New York courts generally look for three things:
- Foreseeability. The owner knew or should have known that criminal activity was a real risk at the property, usually because of past crimes there or nearby.
- A failure to take minimal precautions. The owner did not take reasonable steps to address that risk, such as fixing entrance locks, lighting common areas, or staffing a security post it had set up.
- Proximate cause. The security failure was a substantial cause of the attack, meaning the assailant likely got in or acted because of it.
An injured person generally needs evidence on all three, and New York case law has shaped how courts measure each one.
Where the Rule Comes From: Nallan v. Helmsley-Spear
The modern rule traces to Nallan v. Helmsley-Spear, Inc., a 1980 Court of Appeals decision. A man was shot in the back in the lobby of a Manhattan office building while the lobby attendant was away from his post.
The court held that landowners must take minimal precautions to protect members of the public from the reasonably foreseeable criminal acts of third persons. It also held that the building's history of prior crimes could make an attack foreseeable.
When an Owner Chooses to Provide Security
When an owner voluntarily provides a security measure, such as a lobby attendant, and people reasonably rely on it, Nallan holds that the owner must carry it out with reasonable care. An empty guard desk can be as significant as no guard at all.
That duty has limits. Owners are not insurers of a visitor's safety, and the real question is whether the owner acted reasonably in light of the risks it knew about or should have known about.
How Do New York Courts Decide Whether an Assault Was Foreseeable?
New York courts usually decide foreseeability by looking at the property’s crime history and how closely earlier incidents resemble the attack. This is often the most contested issue in a negligent security case, and a documented history of crime can give an injured person a strong answer. A NYC premises liability lawyer can gather police reports, 911 records, and prior complaints to build that history.
Crimes Elsewhere in the Same Complex Can Count
Earlier crimes do not have to happen in the same building to make an attack foreseeable. In Jacqueline S. v. City of New York, a 1993 Court of Appeals case, a 14-year-old resident of a Manhattan public housing complex was abducted in her building's lobby and raped in a roof utility room.
Police had responded to many robberies and several rapes throughout the complex, often on roofs and roof landings. The Court of Appeals held that prior crimes did not need to be identical or occur at the exact location, and that crime throughout a unified housing complex could make the attack foreseeable.
Given the unlocked lobby and utility room doors and the housing authority's conceded failure to supply even rudimentary security, the court held there was enough evidence for a jury to decide foreseeability.
When a Random Attack Is Not Foreseeable
A security plan and a history of only minor trouble can defeat a foreseeability claim. In Maheshwari v. City of New York, decided in 2004, a concertgoer was beaten by four men in a parking area at a Randall's Island concert.
Organizers had provided security, and incidents at past concerts were far less serious than a violent assault, so the Court of Appeals held that the random attack was not foreseeable.
Evidence That Strengthens a Negligent Security Claim
Together, these decisions point to the evidence that tends to matter most:
- Prior crimes on the property or within the same building complex, especially violent ones
- Complaints from tenants or visitors to management about break-ins, trespassers, or broken doors
- Police reports, 911 records, and incident logs for the address
- Conditions that invite crime, such as broken locks, propped doors, dark stairwells, and roof access
- The owner's own security plan, and whether it was actually followed
The owner's knowledge of crime matters as much as its knowledge of a broken door. A landlord who received complaints about trespassers, drug activity, or an earlier mugging in the stairwell is in a very different position than one with no warning at all.
Tenants often know more of that history than they realize, because break-ins and strangers in the building tend to become hallway conversation.
Proving the Security Failure Caused the Attack
Showing a broken lock is not enough on its own, because the injured person must also connect that failure to the assault. If you were injured on someone’s property during an attack, that link between the security failure and your injury is often what decides the case.
In Burgos v. Aqueduct Realty Corp., a 1998 Court of Appeals decision, a tenant was attacked in her building's hallway by two unidentified men. None of the building's entrance locks worked, and the building had a history of robberies.
The Intruder Rule From Burgos
The court held that a tenant can recover only if the assailant was an intruder who got in through a negligently maintained entrance. If the attacker was another tenant or an invited guest with lawful access, a broken front door did not cause the harm.
People who are attacked rarely know who did it, and they do not have to identify the assailant. The evidence must make it more likely than not that the attacker was an intruder, which circumstantial proof can show, such as testimony that the attacker was a stranger in a building where residents knew one another.
What Security Does New York Law Require in Apartment Buildings?
New York requires many apartment buildings to provide basic security features, from self-locking entrance doors to deadbolts on apartment doors. Multiple Dwelling Law §50-a and nearby sections set that baseline, and New York City's Housing Maintenance Code adds requirements for apartment doors.
| Security feature | Where the rule comes from | What it requires |
|---|---|---|
| Self-closing, self-locking entrance doors | Multiple Dwelling Law §50-a | Class A multiple dwellings built or converted after January 1, 1968, must keep entrance doors locked at all times unless an attendant is on duty |
| Intercom and buzzer system | Multiple Dwelling Law §50-a | Covered buildings with eight or more apartments must let tenants talk with visitors and unlock the entrance door from their apartment |
| Peephole in each apartment door | Multiple Dwelling Law §51-a | Owners of multiple dwellings must provide and maintain one, with hotels and dormitories excluded |
| Mirror in self-service elevators | Multiple Dwelling Law §51-b | Each self-service passenger elevator must have a mirror that shows who is inside before you step in |
| Deadbolt, latch, and chain door guard | NYC Housing Maintenance Code §27-2043 | Apartment entrance doors in class A multiple dwellings in New York City need a heavy-duty deadbolt, a heavy-duty latch set, and a chain guard |
Violating these requirements can be important evidence that an owner failed to take minimal precautions. The common-law duty goes further than the statute, though. In Jacqueline S., the Court of Appeals held that the housing authority's duty to provide minimal security existed independently of the Multiple Dwelling Law.
Common Negligent Security Cases in New York City
Common settings for these claims in the city include:
- Apartment buildings and public housing: broken entrance doors, unsecured roof access, and dark stairwells and hallways
- Parking garages and lots: poor lighting, broken gates, and unmonitored levels
- Bars, nightclubs, and venues: violence by patrons the establishment had reason to anticipate
- Hotels, stores, and office buildings: unstaffed security posts and inoperable cameras or access controls
The setting matters less than the pattern: a known risk, a missing or broken safeguard, and an attack that safeguard would likely have stopped.
Bar Assaults and New York's Dram Shop Act
A bar assault can lead to a second claim under New York's Dram Shop Act, which lets an injured person sue a business that unlawfully sold alcohol to an intoxicated person who then caused the injury. Section 65 of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Law also prohibits sales to anyone visibly intoxicated.
How Fault Is Shared Between the Owner and the Attacker
A New York jury can divide fault between the property owner and the attacker, even though owners often argue that the attacker alone is responsible.
In Chianese v. Meier, a 2002 decision, a woman was attacked at her Greenwich Village apartment by a man who got in through negligently maintained security doors. The jury split responsibility 50-50 between the landlord and the attacker.
How Fault Allocation Affects a Negligent Security Recovery
When a jury finds the owner 50 percent or less at fault, its share of non-economic damages, such as pain and suffering, is generally limited to its percentage of fault. Chianese held that a landlord can apply that rule under section 1601 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules (CPLR), even when the attacker acted intentionally.
That rule does not limit economic damages, such as medical bills and lost wages. Because assailants often have no ability to pay, how a jury divides fault can change what an injured person actually collects.
Which Filing Deadline Applies to a New York Negligent Security Claim?
Filing deadlines depend on who is being sued:
- Private property owners: generally three years from the attack under CPLR 214(5).
- Public housing and city property: a notice of claim generally must be served within 90 days under General Municipal Law §50-e, and claims against NYCHA follow the same 90-day rule under Public Housing Law §157. The lawsuit generally must follow within one year and 90 days.
- The attacker: generally one year for assault and battery under CPLR 215, with added time when a criminal case is brought against the same person.
- Wrongful death: generally two years from the date of death under New York's wrongful death statute.
Exceptions and tolling rules can change these periods.
How to Protect a Negligent Security Claim After an Assault
Evidence in a negligent security case can disappear quickly. Building camera video may be erased on a set schedule, and a landlord may replace a broken lock soon after an attack. These records tend to carry the most weight later:
- Medical records that note how and where the injury happened
- A police report and its report number
- Photos of the door, lock, lighting, or other security failure, taken as soon as possible
- Notes on every prior incident or complaint you know about, including what family members and neighbors saw
- A lawyer's written demand asking the owner to preserve video and access records
Many people also find it helpful to speak with a lawyer before giving a recorded statement to the owner's insurance company, since early statements can be used to dispute how the attack happened.
Crime victims may also qualify for state compensation for medical bills and lost earnings through the New York State Office of Victim Services, which is separate from any lawsuit.
Negligent Security in New York: Questions Answered by Our Attorneys
The answers below cover questions people often ask after an assault on someone else's property in New York.
Does my attacker have to be arrested or convicted for me to sue the property owner?
No. A negligent security claim against a New York property owner is a civil case that does not depend on an arrest or a criminal conviction, and the attacker does not have to be caught. If the attacker is convicted, a crime victim generally has seven years from the date of the crime to sue that person directly under CPLR 213-b.
Can a guest or visitor sue a building owner for an assault in New York?
Yes. New York's rule protects members of the public from reasonably foreseeable crime, so a guest, customer, or other visitor lawfully on the property can bring a claim, not only a tenant. Nallan v. Helmsley-Spear itself involved a shooting in the lobby of an office building rather than an apartment.
Will the property owner's insurance cover an assault claim?
Often, but not always. Many New York building owners, bars, and stores carry commercial liability insurance, and some of those policies exclude or limit coverage for assault and battery claims. Because coverage turns on the policy wording, identifying every owner, manager, and outside security company involved can matter as much as the facts of the attack.
Can I sue a bar or nightclub if another customer assaulted me?
Possibly. A New York bar or nightclub must maintain reasonable security against violence it could reasonably foresee. In Bryan v. Crobar, a 2009 Appellate Division decision, eight earlier violent assaults at a Manhattan nightclub were enough to send a shooting victim's claim to trial, even though the prior incidents involved other weapons.
Can I still recover if the owner says I was partly at fault?
Yes, though the award can shrink. Under CPLR 1411, if a jury finds an injured person partly responsible, for example, for propping open a self-locking door or buzzing in a stranger, it reduces the damages by that percentage instead of barring the claim. That reduction is separate from how the jury divides fault between the owner and the attacker.
Finding Out How the Attacker Got In
Many people who are hurt in an attack want to know how the attacker got in and why no one fixed the problem. The answers often sit in records the property owner controls.
If you or a family member was assaulted in an apartment building, garage, bar, or other property in New York, our NYC negligent security attorneys can review what happened and explain your options.
You can also read more about New York law on injuries caused by unsafe property. Consultations are free, and we are available 24/7. Call Washor Kool Sosa Maiorana & Schwartz, LLP at 212-406-1700, or visit us at the Woolworth Building, 233 Broadway #2020, New York, NY 10279.
Attorney Advertising. This article provides general information and is not legal advice. The outcome of any case depends on its specific facts and the law that applies.