Negligent Security Verdicts in New York: What Shooting, Stabbing, and Assault Cases Against Landlords Are Really Worth
Updated: 18 hours ago
You're coming home to your apartment building in the Bronx late at night. The front door lock has been broken for weeks, the intercom doesn't work, and the lobby light is out. A stranger follows you inside and shoots you during a robbery, leaving you with a shattered leg and permanent nerve damage. Negligent security verdicts in New York exist for exactly this situation: when a landlord or property owner knew violence was foreseeable and did nothing, the law lets you hold them financially responsible — even though someone else pulled the trigger.
In this roundup, we look at how New York's highest court has decided shooting, stabbing, and assault cases against landlords, NYCHA, and commercial owners, what those results tell you about case value, and how a defense tactic called Article 16 apportionment can shrink your recovery if your lawyer isn't ready for it.
Why Do Negligent Security Verdicts in New York Reach Seven Figures?
Negligent security verdicts in New York reach seven figures because they combine catastrophic, permanent injuries — gunshot wounds, stab wounds, severe beatings — with a well-established legal duty that property owners can't easily escape. In Nallan v. Helmsley-Spear, Inc., 50 N.Y.2d 507 (1980), New York's Court of Appeals held that a building owner must take minimal security precautions to protect people on the property from foreseeable criminal acts. In that case, a man was shot in a building lobby where the attendant had left the desk unmanned — and the court said a jury could find the owner liable because of prior crimes in the building.
Foreseeability is the key word. It means the owner knew, or should have known, that criminal activity was a real risk — usually because of earlier crimes on or near the property. In Jacqueline S. v. City of New York, 81 N.Y.2d 288 (1993), a case involving a brutal attack in a public housing building, the Court of Appeals made clear that the prior crimes don't have to be at the exact same spot in the building. A pattern of violence in the housing complex can be enough to put the landlord on notice.
The injuries in these cases drive the numbers. A gunshot survivor often faces multiple surgeries, retained bullet fragments, permanent nerve damage, chronic pain, and post-traumatic stress that makes it hard to ever feel safe at home again. Many more Americans survive firearm injuries each year than die from them, and survivors frequently deal with long-term physical and mental health consequences. When a young person is left with a permanent disability and decades of future medical care and lost earnings, the damages math gets big fast. We walked through one detailed example of this in our post on negligent security and gunshot injuries in the Bronx.
What Do New York's Leading Negligent Security Decisions Say About Landlord Liability?
The pattern across New York's leading negligent security decisions is consistent: broken locks plus prior crimes equals landlord liability, even when the attacker is a violent criminal who was never caught. Here are the results that shape every negligent security case filed in New York today.
Burgos v. Aqueduct Realty Corp., 92 N.Y.2d 544 (1998). A tenant was attacked inside her building, and the landlord argued she couldn't win because she couldn't prove exactly who the attacker was or how he got in. The Court of Appeals rejected that defense. You only need to show it's more likely than not that the attacker was an intruder who entered through a negligently secured entrance — like a front door with a broken lock. You do not need to identify the assailant or prove his path step by step.
Mason v. U.E.S.S. Leasing Corp., 96 N.Y.2d 875 (2001). A tenant in the Lefrak City complex in Queens was attacked in her apartment by a man with relatives in the complex who had been arrested there and had a record of robbery and attempted rape on the property. The Court of Appeals let her case go forward, holding that a jury should decide whether the landlord negligently failed to keep out someone it knew to be a danger, and that opening her door without checking the peephole did not, as a matter of law, excuse the landlord. Landlords often argue the victim's own conduct broke the chain of causation. This decision keeps that argument from ending a case before trial.
Chianese v. Meier, 98 N.Y.2d 270 (2002). A tenant was attacked in her apartment building after an intruder got in through a negligently maintained entrance. The jury found the landlord and the attacker each 50 percent at fault. The case matters most for what it says about apportionment — more on that below — but it also confirms that juries will hold landlords substantially responsible even for an intentional, vicious crime committed by someone else.
These same principles apply with full force to NYCHA buildings, where broken locks and missing security can persist for months despite repeated complaints — a problem we examined in our earlier post on landlord accountability in recent NYCHA cases. And the money behind these claims is real: New York City pays out well over $1 billion a year in judgments and claims according to the NYC Comptroller's annual claims report, with personal injury claims against city agencies making up a major share. Negligent security verdicts in New York are a meaningful part of that landscape, particularly in the Bronx, where juries have historically taken unsecured-building cases seriously. For a concrete scenario showing how these cases are built, see our post on a shooting in an unsecured Bronx apartment lobby.
How Does CPLR Article 16 Apportionment to the Shooter Affect What You Actually Collect?
CPLR Article 16 lets a landlord ask the jury to assign a percentage of fault to the criminal who attacked you — and if the landlord's share of fault is 50 percent or less, the landlord only has to pay its percentage of your pain-and-suffering damages. Under CPLR § 1601, a defendant found 50 percent or less at fault is liable for non-economic damages only in proportion to its share of fault. Since the shooter is usually unknown, in prison, or penniless, every percentage point the jury assigns to him is money you may never collect.
In Chianese v. Meier, the Court of Appeals held that a negligent landlord is allowed to seek this apportionment against an intentional attacker. The plaintiff argued it was unfair to let a landlord who failed to fix a lock shift blame to the criminal, but the court said Article 16 applies. That ruling is why every negligent security defendant in New York now pleads apportionment as a defense.
Here's what it means in dollars. Say a jury awards you $3 million for pain and suffering and finds the landlord 30 percent at fault and the shooter 70 percent at fault. Under Article 16, the landlord owes only $900,000 of that non-economic award. But — and this is the part that changes case strategy — the limitation applies only to non-economic damages. Your economic damages, meaning medical expenses, future care costs, and lost earnings, remain fully collectible from the negligent landlord regardless of the percentages.
Most claimants miss that distinction, and experienced lawyers build their entire trial strategy around it: in a negligent security case with an Article 16 defense, the life-care plan, the vocational expert, and the economist aren't window dressing — they're the portion of the verdict the landlord can't apportion away, so maximizing documented economic loss is often worth more than fighting over fault percentages. There are also exceptions where the Article 16 limitation doesn't apply at all, listed in CPLR § 1602, and your attorney should analyze whether any of them fits your case. For context on how economic versus non-economic damages play out across case types, see our analysis of what NYC personal injury cases are worth in 2025 and 2026.
What Evidence Pushes a Gunshot Negligent Security Case Past $1 Million?
The cases that clear $1 million share two things: airtight proof that the landlord ignored a known danger, and thorough documentation of a permanent, life-altering injury. On the liability side, the strongest proof usually includes:
Prior crime records for the building and the surrounding area, which lawyers pull from NYPD data sources like CompStat, police reports, and 911 call records
Repair tickets, work orders, and tenant complaints showing the broken lock, buzzer, or door was reported and never fixed
Housing code violations, because New York's Multiple Dwelling Law § 50-a requires self-closing, self-locking entrance doors in covered multiple dwellings
Testimony from other tenants about how long the entrance stood unsecured and who was getting into the building
A violated statutory duty is powerful in front of a jury. When the law required a self-locking front door and the landlord let it hang open for months, the "we had no way to know" defense collapses.
On the damages side, a gunshot wound with permanent disability needs medical storytelling. Bullet wounds that shatter bone or sever nerves often leave survivors with foot drop, loss of grip strength, or chronic burning pain that never fully resolves — peripheral nerve injuries can be permanent when the nerve is cut or severely damaged. Your treating surgeons, a physiatrist, and a pain management specialist establish permanence. A vocational expert then translates the disability into lost earning capacity, and an economist projects it over your work life. A 30-year-old laborer who can no longer climb stairs or lift has an economic loss claim that can exceed $2 million on its own, before a jury ever considers pain and suffering. That's the same expert framework we've seen drive results in the catastrophic cases covered in our March 2026 verdict roundup.
What Should You Do After a Shooting or Assault in an Apartment Building or Parking Lot?
Report the crime to the police immediately, get medical care, and start preserving evidence of the security failure before the landlord quietly fixes it. The police report creates an official record tying the attack to the location. Then, as soon as you're physically able — or through a family member — photograph the broken lock, the propped-open door, the dead intercom, the burned-out lights, or the empty guard booth. Security conditions have a way of getting repaired within days of a shooting, and photos taken before the fix are often the single most valuable piece of evidence in the case.
Gather the names of neighbors or coworkers who complained about the conditions, and save any texts, emails, or 311 complaints about the entrance. If the property is a NYCHA building or another public entity's parking facility, be aware that claims against public authorities come with strict early deadlines — in some cases as short as 90 days to file a formal notice — so waiting even a few months can cost you the case. These same preservation principles apply whether you were shot in a residential lobby, stabbed in a commercial parking garage, or assaulted outside a shopping center: the owner's duty to take minimal security precautions extends to tenants, guests, customers, and workers lawfully on the property.
Finally, don't assume you can't afford a lawyer. Negligent security cases are handled on contingency, meaning you pay nothing unless the case recovers money. Given what's at stake — as the awards in our early May 2026 roundup show — the difference between handling a claim alone and building it with experts is routinely measured in millions.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can I sue the landlord if the shooter was never caught or convicted?
Yes. Under the Court of Appeals decision in Burgos v. Aqueduct Realty Corp., you don't need to identify your attacker. You only need to show it's more likely than not that he was an intruder who got in through a negligently secured entrance, like a door with a broken lock. Your civil case against the owner proceeds independently of any criminal prosecution.
Do negligent security cases protect visitors and workers, or only tenants?
The property owner's duty to take minimal security precautions extends to anyone lawfully on the premises — tenants, their guests, delivery workers, customers in a parking lot or store, and employees. What matters is that the owner knew criminal activity was foreseeable and failed to take reasonable steps to prevent it.
Will the jury just blame the criminal instead of the landlord?
The landlord will ask the jury to apportion fault to the attacker under CPLR Article 16, and if the landlord ends up 50 percent or less at fault, its share of your pain-and-suffering award is capped at that percentage. But the landlord remains fully responsible for your economic damages — medical costs and lost earnings — which is why strong expert proof of economic loss is critical.
What is a gunshot injury negligent security case worth in New York?
There's no fixed number, but cases involving permanent disability — nerve damage, shattered bones, chronic pain, and lost earning capacity — routinely resolve in the seven figures when liability proof is strong. Value depends on the severity and permanence of your injuries, your age and work history, the strength of the prior-crime and broken-security evidence, and the venue where the case is tried.
Conclusion
Negligent security verdicts in New York show that landlords, NYCHA, and commercial owners pay seven-figure sums when broken locks, missing guards, and ignored crime patterns let violence reach tenants and visitors. The criminal's guilt doesn't erase the owner's negligence — and with the right proof of prior crimes and documented economic loss, Article 16 apportionment doesn't have to gut your recovery either.
If you or someone you know was shot, stabbed, or assaulted in a building or parking lot with inadequate security, the team at Yassi Law PC is ready to help. Call us today at 646-992-2138 for a consultation.
Written by Reza Yassi
This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Although I am an attorney, I am not your attorney, and reading this article does not create an attorney-client relationship. Laws vary by jurisdiction and may have changed since the publication of this article. For advice specific to your situation, consult a qualified attorney.
.png)