Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.

Olga ANCHUMDIA, Plaintiff–Appellant,

TAHL PROPP EQUITIES, LLC, et al., Defendants–Respondents.

Dec. 11, 2014.

123 A.D.3d 505

In this case, Ken Maguire & Associates was able to successfully obtain summary judgment, where the judge found that Defendant's contractual duty to provide minimal security was satisfied through providing locking doors, video cameras, and an unarmed security guard.

Attorneys and Law Firms

Mark L. Lubelsky and Associates, New York (Simon I. Malinowski of counsel), for appellant.

Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP, New York (Nicholas Hurzeler of counsel), for Tahl Propp Equities, LLC, Manhattan North Management Co., Inc. and Upaca Terrace Houses, Inc., respondents.

Ken Maguire & Associates PLLC, Garden City (Kenneth R. Maguire of counsel), for Aargo Services, Inc., respondent.

GONZALEZ, P.J., TOM, FRIEDMAN, ACOSTA, MOSKOWITZ, JJ.

Opinion

*505 Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Louis B. York, J.), entered May 13, 2013, which granted the motion of defendants Tahl Propp Equities, LLC, Manhattan North Management Co., Inc. and Upaca Terrace Houses, Inc. for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against them, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Order, same court and Justice, entered May 10, 2013, granting the motion of defendant Aargo Services, Inc. for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against it, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

[1] In this premises liability action, defendants demonstrated that they satisfied the duty to provide minimal security precautions by providing locking doors, video cameras monitoring the front entrance and the lobby, and an unarmed security guard who monitored the entire building (James v. Jamie Towers Hous. Co., 99 N.Y.2d 639, 640, 760 N.Y.S.2d 718, 790 N.E.2d 1147 [2003] ). While plaintiff further asserts that defendants negligently performed a duty they voluntarily undertook, she does not argue, and did not adduce any evidence below, that she neglected to take certain other precautions or tailored her conduct based on the provision of guards in the lobby, and thus cannot show reliance on such voluntary undertaking (Nallan v. Helmsley–Spear, Inc., 50 N.Y.2d 507, 521–523, 429 N.Y.S.2d 606, 407 N.E.2d 451 [1980] ). Accordingly, defendant’s motion was properly granted.

[2] Moreover, defendant security company Aargo Services, Inc. owed no duty to plaintiff. Plaintiff was not a third-party beneficiary of the security agreement between it and the building manager (Pagan v. Hampton Houses, 187 A.D.2d 325, 325, 589 N.Y.S.2d 471 [1st Dept.1992] ), and because Aargo did not displace the building *506 owners and manager’s duty to maintain the premises safely, Aargo cannot be liable in tort to plaintiff for the performance of its contractual duty to the building owners and managers (Espinal v. Melville Snow Contrs., 98 N.Y.2d 136, 140, 746 N.Y.S.2d 120, 773 N.E.2d 485 [2002]; cf. Palka v. Servicemaster Mgt. Servs. Corp., 83 N.Y.2d 579, 587–589, 611 N.Y.S.2d 817, 634 N.E.2d 189 [1994] ).