Anokye v. 240 E. 175th St. Hous. Dev. Fund Corp

In Anokye v. 240 E. 175th St. Hous. Dev. Fund Corp., 16 AD3d 287 (1st Dept. 2005) the defendant security company had an agreement with the owners/ managing agents of a residential dwelling to provide security services; and plaintiff was the victim of the criminal acts of intruders. The Court held that: "summary judgment on the [building owner's] third-party claim [against the security company] is not appropriate ... in view of triable issues as to whether the [plaintiff's] decedent's harm was in fact proximately caused by a failure of the security company to perform the obligations it assumed in its contract with the building owners." Anokye v. 240 E. 175th St. Hous. Dev. Fund Corp., supra, 16 AD3d at 288. In Anokye, the evidence indicated "that the contracted-for security guard was not present at his lobby post at the time of the incident", despite the fact that "the locks to the lobby doors were not working, ...and ...the building had been the scene of drug and other criminal activities, including burglaries". Anokye v. 240 E. 175th St. Hous. Dev. Fund Corp., supra, 16 AD3d at 288.