Jahi James, &c., et al.,
Appellants,
v.
Jamie Towers Housing Co., Inc.,
et al.,
Respondents.
2003 NY Int. 43
MEMORANDUM:
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed with costs.
Defendant Jamie Towers Housing Company, Inc. owns a four-building cooperative housing complex in the Bronx. Jamie Towers contracted with defendant Lance Investigation Service, Inc. to provide security services, including 24-hour security guards, for the housing complex.
In June 1994, Jahi James and two companions, all
residents of the housing complex, were accosted by a gang of
James's father commenced this action on his infant son's and his own behalf, alleging that Jamie Towers and Lance negligently failed to provide adequate security and negligently allowed security personnel to abandon their post in the building's lobby. Plaintiffs also claimed breach of contract on the theory that James was a third-party beneficiary of the contract between Jamie Towers and Lance.
After plaintiffs filed a note of issue, Lance moved for
summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims
asserted against it. Jamie Towers cross-moved for summary
judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims asserted
against it; plaintiffs opposed the motions and cross-moved for
summary judgment on the issue of whether James was a third-party
beneficiary of the contract between Jamie Towers and Lance.
As to Jamie Towers, both the majority and the dissent below correctly ruled that by providing locking doors, an intercom service and 24-hour security, Jamie Towers discharged its common law duty to take minimal security precautions against reasonably foreseeable criminal acts by third parties ( see Nallan v Helmsley-Spear, Inc. , 50 NY2d 507, 519-520 [1980]; see also Jacqueline S. v City of N.Y., , 81 NY2d 288, 295 [1993]).
In addition to this common law claim, plaintiffs raised a claim against both defendants based on an alleged breach of the contract between Jamie Towers and Lance. Assuming without deciding that Lance owed plaintiffs a duty of care (which Lance did not contest), plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact concerning the scope and breach of that duty. They likewise failed to raise a triable issue of fact regarding Jamie Towers' failure to ensure that Lance performed its contractual duty.