DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

§ 290

Citation
§ 290
Parent Document
Francis v. Kings Park Manor, Inc., 992 F.3d 67 (2021)
Effective Date
2021-03-25
Original Source
https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4867798/francis-v-kings-park-manor-inc/ ↗

Other Sections in This Document (993)

Full Text

1,726 chars 
37  Luisa R. v. City of New York, 253 A.D.2d 196, 200 (1st Dep’t 1999). As the
facts of Luisa R. suggest, however, this duty applies only where harm was allegedly
caused by conditions that posed a risk to the general public (not just to specific
tenants) and where both the foreseeability of criminal acts and the landlord’s
practical ability to respond were evident. See id. at 198-203 (tenant plaintiff’s
negligence claim survived summary judgment, where plaintiff was assaulted by
intruder associated with non-tenant drug dealers, and landlord failed to maintain
working doors, locks, or intercom and to remove non-tenant drug dealers).
       38  Blatt v. N.Y.C. Hous. Auth., 123 A.D.2d 591, 592-93 (2d Dep’t 1986).
Notably, the Blatt court held that the landlord had no duty of care even when (1) the
plaintiff alleged more severe co-tenant misconduct than is alleged here; and (2) the
defendant landlord, unlike KPM here, allegedly promised the plaintiff that it would
protect him and evict his harasser. See id. at 591 (co-tenant threatened plaintiff with
a gun and “warn[ed plaintiff] to ‘stay away from his daughter’ or he would ‘blow
[his] brains out’” and—roughly six weeks after the landlord assured plaintiff of
protection—co-tenant shot plaintiff in apartment building lobby after declaring his
intent to kill plaintiff). While we agree with Judge Lohier that the degree of control
sufficient for landlord liability for the behavior of tenants under New York law is
fact-dependent, Lohier Dissent at 25, cases like Blatt make clear that landlords
cannot be presumed to have substantial control over tenants without allegations of
unusual circumstances. Francis alleges no facts suggesting that KPM’s relationship