When a property owner fails to provide reasonable security and a crime occurs that the owner could have prevented, the owner — not just the criminal — bears liability for the injury.
The negligent-security case turns on foreseeability. Nallan v. Helmsley-Spear established that an owner is liable when (1) the criminal act was foreseeable based on the property’s crime history, the neighborhood’s crime profile, or specific prior incidents, and (2) the owner failed to take reasonable security measures that would have prevented or mitigated the harm. Burgos v. Aqueduct Realty applied the framework in the NYCHA context. Reasonable measures vary by property type.
Police records, 311 complaints, prior crime reports at the property, neighbor accounts, building tenant complaints, and media coverage all build the foreseeability record. We subpoena precinct call logs and FOIL the property’s NYPD complaint history the week we are retained.
NYCHA tenant complaints, NYC Housing Court records, and the Public Housing Authority’s maintenance logs all feed into the foreseeability case. NYCHA has been on notice of building-level security failures for decades; the records prove it.
Footage from the building, the surrounding businesses, MTA cameras in adjacent transit areas, and private camera networks (Ring, NYC SafeWatch) all have short retention windows. NYC’s CityWatch and DOT camera footage retention windows are short. We send preservation letters the day we are retained.
Yes. Immigration status does not bar a Labor Law claim in NY. Communications with us are protected by attorney-client privilege.
In most cases, yes. Workers’ comp covers your employer. The Labor Law claim is against third parties — property owner, GC, subcontractor. The two run in parallel.
Three years from the accident under CPLR §214. If a public entity is involved (NYCHA, a city project), a 90-day Notice of Claim is required under GML §50-e.
The legal question of whether the property owner should have anticipated the criminal act based on the property’s crime history, the neighborhood, or specific prior incidents.
Yes, if the assault was foreseeable and the building failed to provide reasonable security (working locks, intercom, vestibule controls, surveillance, lighting).
The same framework applies, with the 90-day Notice of Claim under GML §50-e and the Burgos v. Aqueduct Realty analysis.
No. The property owner’s liability is independent of the criminal’s. The criminal may be unidentified or judgment-proof — neither defeats the case against the owner.
Through expert testimony from security consultants, comparison to industry standards for the property type, and the building’s own pre-incident assessments if any exist.
Same-day callback. English and Spanish. Available 24/7.
