Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Avril SEETRAM, et al., Plaintiffs,v.VANDERVEER ASSOCIATES, et al., Defendants Third-Party Plaintiffs-Appellants;Epic Security, Third-Party Defendant-Respondent.
June 22, 1992.
Shooting victim brought negligence action against owners of housing complex where she was shot. Owners filed third-party complaint against security provider. The Supreme Court, Kings County, Bernstein, J., dismissed third- party complaint, and owner appealed. The Supreme Court, Appellate Division, held that security provider did not breach oral agreement to provide unarmed guard service for the complex.
Contracts 312(1)95k312(1) Most Cited Cases
Oral agreement to provide unarmed guard service for housing complex was not breached when intruder entered upon property and shot victim; wanton injury to victim was not proximately related to acts or omissions of provider or a foreseeable consequence thereof. **464 Sheft & Sheft, New York City (Howard T. Code and Barry Jonas, of counsel), for defendants third-party plaintiffs-appellants.
Kirschenbaum & Kirschenbaum, P.C., Garden City (Kenneth Kirschenbaum, on the brief), for third-party defendant-respondent.
Before HARWOOD, J.P., and BALLETTA, LAWRENCE and SANTUCCI, JJ.
**465 *687 MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendants third-party plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Bernstein, J.), dated February *688 6, 1990, which granted the motion of the third-party defendant Epic Security for summary judgment dismissing the third-party complaint.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The third-party defendant, Epic Security, entered into an oral agreement with the appellants to provide unarmed guard service for the appellants' housing complex. The complex consisted of a total of 2,500 apartments in 59 buildings, each six stories high. The appellants requested two guards on the 7:00 A.M. to 3:00 P.M. and 11:00 P.M. to 7:00 A.M. shifts and three guards on the 3:00 P.M. to 11:00 P.M. shift plus a supervisor in a radio patrol car. At about 2:00 P.M. on February 19, 1986, the plaintiff Avril Seetram was injured when she was shot by an intruder who had entered upon the appellants' property.
Under the facts asserted, there was no breach of the third-party defendant's contractual obligation to provide security for the housing complex. The wanton injury to Mrs. Seetram was not proximately related to the acts or omissions of the third-party defendant or a foreseeable consequence thereof (see, Paradiso v. Apex Investigators & Security Co., 91 A.D.2d 929, 458 N.Y.S.2d 234.) In addition, on the record before us, the appellants have stated no basis for a cause of action sounding in implied indemnification against the third-party defendant (see, Garrett v. Holiday Inns, 58 N.Y.2d 253, 460 N.Y.S.2d 774, 447 N.E.2d 717.)
We have examined the appellants' remaining contentions and find them to be without merit.
585 N.Y.S.2d 464, 184 A.D.2d 687
END OF DOCUMENT