Negligent Security Lawsuits in New York: When a Property Owner Pays for a Crime It Didn't Commit

The rule in one paragraph

A property owner is not an insurer of everyone's safety, and it is not responsible for every crime committed on its premises. But since the Court of Appeals' 1980 decision in Nallan v. Helmsley-Spear, New York has recognized that a landowner who knows, or has reason to know, of a likelihood that third parties will endanger people on the property has a duty to take minimal, reasonable precautions against it. The case law since then has refined three questions: was the crime foreseeable, was the precaution reasonable, and did the missing precaution actually cause the injury? We will take them in turn, because a claim has to clear all three.

Question one: was the crime foreseeable?

Foreseeability is usually proven with history. Courts look for prior criminal activity that was similar in kind and close in location to the attack — not identical, but close enough that a reasonable owner would have seen it coming. Prior assaults in the same building, robberies in the same garage, break-ins through the same side door, and fights at the same bar all count. Graffiti and a general sense that a neighborhood is "rough" usually do not.

In practice, that evidence comes from several places:

• Police records. Complaint reports and 911 calls for the address, often obtained through a Freedom of Information Law request or a subpoena once a case is filed.
• Tenant complaints. Letters, emails, and texts to management about a broken lock, a trespasser sleeping in the stairwell, or a prior robbery.
• Housing records. In New York City, HPD violation histories can show that a door or lock was reported defective and not fixed.
• The owner's own files. Incident logs, security guard reports and prior lawsuits.

The more specific the history, the stronger the case. "There were three muggings in this lobby last year, two through the broken rear door, and the super was told" is a very different case from "the area has crime."

Question two: what precaution was missing?

The duty is to take minimal precautions, not to turn a building into a fortress. What counts as reasonable depends on the property and the history. In residential buildings, the starting point is usually the locks. New York's Multiple Dwelling Law § 50-a requires automatic self-closing and self-locking entrance doors in many apartment buildings, and in buildings with eight or more apartments an intercom that lets tenants talk to visitors and buzz them in. A lobby door that has been propped open for weeks, a lock that never latches, or an intercom that has not worked since spring are the classic facts in these cases.

Other situations raise other questions. Was the parking garage lit? Did a bar with a history of fights have security at the door, and did staff intervene when an argument started? Did a hotel issue keys to anyone who asked? Did a store with repeated robberies ignore its own security consultant's advice? The question in each case is not whether more could have been done — more can always be done — but whether the owner fell below a reasonable minimum given what it knew.

Question three: did that failure cause the attack?

This is where many negligent security cases are fought hardest, and where New York has a rule worth knowing. In two companion decisions in 1998, Burgos v. Aqueduct Realty and Price v. New York City Housing Authority, the Court of Appeals held that a tenant attacked inside an apartment building must show the attacker was an intruder — someone without permission to be there — who got in through a negligently maintained entrance.

The logic is straightforward. If the attacker was another tenant or an invited guest, a working lock would not have kept them out, so the broken lock did not cause the harm. But the Court also recognized that victims rarely know their attacker's address, so the standard is realistic: the jury can infer the attacker was an intruder from the circumstances. Evidence that the victim knew the building's residents and did not recognize the attacker, that the attacker fled out a broken door, or that the building had a pattern of outsiders getting in can all support that inference.

How fault gets divided with the attacker

One of the less intuitive parts of these cases is what happens to the person who actually committed the crime. Usually the attacker is unidentified, judgment-proof or in prison, so the property owner is the only realistic source of recovery. But the owner is still allowed to ask the jury to assign part of the fault to the attacker.

In Chianese v. Meier (2002), the Court of Appeals held that a negligent landlord can apportion responsibility with an intentional assailant under New York's rules on shared liability. Under CPLR Article 16, a defendant found 50% or less at fault generally pays only its proportionate share of non-economic damages such as pain and suffering, though it remains fully responsible for economic losses like medical bills and lost earnings. That makes the apportionment question — how much of this is the owner's failure versus the criminal's act — one of the most important fights in the case, and one that turns on how compelling the security failure is.

The defenses you should expect

Property owners and their insurers defend these cases along predictable lines, and knowing them in advance shapes what evidence matters:

• "Nothing like this ever happened here." The no-foreseeability defense. It is answered with records, which is why police reports, complaints and prior lawsuits are gathered early.
• "The lock was working." Often answered by maintenance logs, work orders, HPD complaints, and tenants who can describe how long a door had been broken.
• "The attacker lived here or was let in." The intruder defense from Burgos. It is answered with circumstantial evidence about who the attacker was and how they got in and out.
• "Nothing would have stopped this." A causation argument, common with determined attackers or crimes that happened in seconds. The response is usually expert testimony about what a working door, a guard or proper lighting does in practice.
• "The criminal is to blame, not us." The apportionment fight described above.

None of these defenses is a reason not to pursue a claim. But each is a reason to collect evidence before the building is repaired and the memories fade.

Where these cases come from

The fact patterns we see most often in Queens and across the city:

• Assaults and robberies in apartment lobbies, stairwells, elevators and laundry rooms with broken entrance doors.
• Attacks in parking garages and lots with no lighting, broken gates or unmonitored cameras.
• Assaults at bars, clubs and lounges where staff saw a fight building and did nothing, or where over-serving played a role.
• Robberies at hotels and short-term rentals with lax key control.
• Attacks in NYCHA developments, which carry their own notice rules (below).

Bars are a special case. Beyond the general duty to provide reasonable security, New York's Dram Shop Act, General Obligations Law § 11-101, can make a seller liable when it unlawfully sells alcohol to a visibly intoxicated person who then injures someone. Both theories can appear in the same case.

Deadlines, including the short ones

A negligence claim against a private property owner generally has to be filed within three years. A claim against the attacker personally for an intentional assault has a much shorter limit, generally one year, although special rules can extend it when a criminal case is involved. Against the New York City Housing Authority or another public entity, a notice of claim within 90 days is generally required, with suit generally due within one year and 90 days. See our guide to New York filing deadlines.

What evidence to collect now

• A police report number and the name of the precinct.
• Photos and video of the entrance, the lock, the lighting and the location of the attack, taken as soon as possible and before repairs.
• Copies of any prior complaints you or your neighbors made to the landlord or management.
• Names of neighbors or staff who know about earlier incidents.
• Your medical records from the first visit forward.

Surveillance video is the evidence that disappears fastest. Many systems overwrite within days, so a written preservation demand to the owner should go out immediately. Crime victims in New York may also be eligible for help with unreimbursed medical costs and lost earnings through the state Office of Victim Services, which has its own filing rules and is separate from any lawsuit.

How this connects to other building claims

Negligent security is a branch of premises liability, and the same core ideas — notice, reasonable care, and causation — run through every case in that family. If you were injured by a building condition rather than a person, see our articles on landlord negligence and the elements of a premises liability claim. Our premises liability practice handles both, on a contingency basis.

Common questions

Can I sue my landlord if I was attacked in my apartment building?

Possibly. You generally need to show the attack was foreseeable, the landlord failed to take reasonable precautions such as maintaining working entrance locks, and the attacker was an intruder who got in because of that failure.

What if the attacker was never caught?

You can still bring a claim against the property owner. A jury can infer that the attacker was an intruder from the circumstances, such as the victim not recognizing the attacker and evidence the door was broken.

Is a bar responsible if I was assaulted inside?

It can be, if staff knew or should have known a fight was likely and failed to act, or if security was inadequate given the bar's history. The Dram Shop Act may add a separate claim if the bar unlawfully served a visibly intoxicated person who caused the harm.

Does it matter that a crime caused my injury?

It affects how fault is divided. The owner can ask the jury to assign part of the responsibility to the attacker, which can reduce what the owner pays for pain and suffering if its share is 50% or less.

How long do I have to file a negligent security lawsuit?

Generally three years against a private owner. Against NYCHA or another public entity, a notice of claim is generally due within 90 days.

This page is general information about New York law. It is not legal advice, and reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship with Davidov & Cohen Law. To talk about your own situation, tell us what happened.