Extended Search
Generic filters
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Search in excerpt
Search in comments
Filter by Custom Post Type
Extended Search
Generic filters
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Search in excerpt
Search in comments
Filter by Custom Post Type

Kotchina v. Luna Park Hous. Corp – Case Brief Summary (New York)

In Kotchina v. Luna Park Hous. Corp., 27 AD3d 696 (2d Dept. 2006) the defendant security company provided security services for residential premises in which plaintiff was assaulted.

The Court held: "Here, [the security company] Park Avenue's obligations under the contract were not limited to protecting property, and Park Avenue's president testified ... that one of the duties of the security guards was to provide security for tenants of the premises." Thus, the security company's motion for summary judgment was properly denied, since it "failed to establish, prima facie, as a matter of law, that the plaintiff was not an intended third-party beneficiary of its contract with the building manager." (Kotchina v. Luna Park Hous. Corp., supra, 27 AD3d at 696.)