An assault by an intruder can raise a separate question: did a preventable security failure help make the attack possible?
The attacker’s conduct and the property owner’s conduct are separate questions
A sexual assault may support an investigation into the security of the property where it happened. A claim against an owner or operator concerns that defendant’s own duties and conduct, rather than automatic responsibility for everything an attacker does. Identify who controlled the premises, who was responsible for access and security, and how the assailant entered or remained there. Calling someone a trespasser is the beginning of that factual inquiry, not proof of the owner’s liability.
Foreseeability and reasonable security precautions
In Karim v. 89th Jamaica Realty Co., L.P., 127 A.D.3d 1030 (2d Dept 2015), the court explained that landlords are not insurers of safety but must take reasonable precautions against foreseeable criminal harm to tenants and visitors. Relevant evidence may include sufficiently nearby prior similar criminal activity and how security was staffed. The duties and evidence must be assessed for the actual property and the injured person’s relationship to it, rather than assuming that every location has the same security obligations.
Connect the alleged security failure to the assault
A broken lock matters differently if an intruder used it to enter than if the person was lawfully admitted through another route. Preserve the evidence showing access: surveillance, door or gate condition, repair requests, key or credential records, visitor logs, and witness accounts. Also identify whether the defendant controlled the entrance and knew or should have known about the alleged problem. Evidence of a defect and evidence of an assault must be connected, not simply placed next to each other.
A targeted attack does not automatically defeat a negligent-security claim
In Scurry v. New York City Housing Authority, 39 N.Y.3d 443 (2023), the Court of Appeals rejected a categorical rule that a targeted attack necessarily breaks the causal connection between negligent security and an injury. The court applied ordinary causation principles to intruders who entered residential buildings through allegedly defective entrances. That does not make every planned assault foreseeable or every owner liable; the actual access, security measures, and causal evidence remain important.
A published result from Noah’s practice
Noah’s published results include a $2 million settlement against a religious entity for failing to secure its premises, allowing a trespasser to sexually abuse a groundskeeper. The public summary does not disclose the confidential case record, and this article does not add unreported facts or claim a court found liability. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Every claim depends on its own facts, evidence, injuries, and applicable law.
What to preserve and discuss
Record the exact location, approximate time, entrances involved, and the names of witnesses or responding agencies. Save original messages and photographs, and tell counsel promptly if cameras, electronic access systems, or repair records may exist. Do not enter restricted areas or confront the alleged attacker to gather evidence. Noah can investigate whether the facts support a claim involving sexual abuse and institutional responsibility. A property-security claim should be evaluated alongside any other available claims, with attention to the particular defendants and deadlines.
Explore sexual abuse cases
New York sexual abuse representation. Child Sexual Abuse in the Archdiocese of New York: Accountability and Survivors’ Rights
This article provides general information, not legal advice. Reading it or contacting Noah does not create a lawyer-client relationship. Results depend on the facts and law applicable to each matter.