NY Compensation For Victims Of Gun Violence

NY Victims of gun violence can be compensated by:

1. Suing the manufacturer of the weapon used in the crime.  An Overview of Lawsuits Against the Gun Industry
2. Suing the owner, tenant or property manager of the property where the crime occurred.
3. Filing a claim with the NY Office of Victim Services.
4. Suing the person who injured you with the gun.
5. Suing the security guard company employed by the owner or tenant of the property where the crime occurred.
6. Suing the employer of the person who injured your with a gun.

• Are NY Landlords Liable When A Tenant Assaults Another Tenant?
• The Rights of a Crime Victim

Property owners (“PO”) have a common-law duty to protect those who are lawfully on their premises (tenants and their guests)from foreseeable criminal acts committed by third parties.  PO must only take minimal security measures from these reasonably foreseeable criminal acts. The scope of a PO’s duty of reasonable care to maintain its premises in a safe condition for lawful guests arises from past criminal experiences and the likelihood of the criminal conduct endangering a visitor’s safety. Foreseeability and notice are the two crucial elements in determining landowner negligence in safely maintaining its premises. The Courts examine factors such as: (1) previous criminal conduct; (2) similarity to the occurrence at issue, and; (3) the proximity of previous crimes to the owner’s premises. 

NY Landlords’ Liability for Crime & Terrorism

Landlords have the duty to protect tenants and visitors from the misconduct of other tenants and outsiders. Failure to execute that duty, including negligent exercise of duties can expose them to great liability. Landlords can be liable as the result of breaching the duty to prevent foreseeable risks by failing to implement security measures.

Landlords and property managers are usually not liable for harm that occurs in areas under the exclusive control of tenants. But landlords have a duty to exercise reasonable care in maintaining common areas, e.g. lobbies, stairwells and ventilation systems. In addition to harm that occurs on their premises, landlords are also liable for harm off the premises resulting from conditions or activities on the premises.

For example, the World Trade Center disaster caused neighboring buildings to collapse and be exposed to asbestos contamination.

Terrorists could target HVAC systems in large buildings to disperse chemical or biological agents. Without carbon and HEPA filters, external air intake systems are very vulnerable to attack from contaminants such as toxic gas (e.g. hydrogen cyanide or chlorine) or aerosolized toxins (e.g. ricin or anthrax). Landlords must exercise reasonable care under the circumstances in maintaining their property in a sage condition.

Landlords should take fire safety precautions and provide security depending on the use of the premises and foreseeability of particular risks. The World Trade Center 1993 plaintiffs argued that the Port Authority breached its duty to prevent foreseeable risks by failing to implement security measures, i.e. restricting access to the parking garage which could have prevented the bombing. Factors to determine due care are failure to abide by past practices and policies and industry standards: e.g. every other downtown office building restricted access to parking garages.

Landlords should update their policies and procedures to include:

1. guidance on the signs of terrorism;
2. comprehensive policies to safeguard residents and facilities;
3. contingency plans for disaster response;
4. emergency training of staff;
5. crime prevention and resident safety awareness programs; and
6. anti-terrorism insurance coverage.

Property owners (“PO”) have a common-law duty to protect those who are lawfully on their premises (tenants and their guests)from foreseeable criminal acts committed by third parties.  PO must only take minimal security measures from these reasonably foreseeable criminal acts. The scope of a PO’s duty of reasonable care to maintain its premises in a safe condition for lawful guests arises from past criminal experiences and the likelihood of the criminal conduct endangering a visitor’s safety. Foreseeability and notice are the two crucial elements in determining landowner negligence in safely maintaining its premises. The Courts examine factors such as: (1) previous criminal conduct; (2) similarity to the occurrence at issue, and; (3) the proximity of previous crimes to the owner’s premises.