## Facts

- Irving Kazanoff sued individually and as executor of the estate of his wife, Shelley Kazanoff, who was murdered in their rented condominium apartment in Forest Hills, New York.
- The building was owned by a condominium association; a management company served as managing agent under contract; a separate corporation owned unsold units, including the Kazanoffs’ unit.
- Two men entered the building’s vestibule through an unsecured street door, attempted to gain access to the lobby, and remained in the vestibule for roughly 45 minutes.
- A postal carrier opened the lobby door and the two men entered behind him, went to the apartment floor, and later forced Shelley back into her apartment, where she was killed.
- The plaintiff alleged: (1) the United States was liable under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) because a Postal Service employee negligently allowed the assailants into the building; and (2) the building-related defendants were negligent under New York law for failing to provide adequate security.
- The district court granted summary judgment to the United States, the association, the managing agent, and the unit owner; the plaintiff appealed only as to those defendants.

## Issues

1. Under New York negligence law as incorporated through the FTCA, did a postal carrier owe a duty to a tenant to prevent unknown third parties from entering the building lobby?
2. Under New York premises-liability principles, did the association, managing agent, and unit owner breach any duty to provide reasonable security against third-party criminal acts?
3. Did the evidentiary record present genuine disputes of material fact on duty or breach sufficient to defeat summary judgment?

## Decision

- The Second Circuit affirmed summary judgment for all appealed defendants.
- The court held the United States owed no relevant duty under New York law based on the postal carrier’s conduct in allowing entry.
- The court held the building-related defendants did not breach any duty of reasonable care regarding security measures under the circumstances shown in the record.
- Because duty (as to the United States) and breach (as to the building-related defendants) were not supported on the evidence, summary judgment was proper.

## Legal Principles

- Under the FTCA, the United States is liable only where a private person would be liable under the tort law of the state where the alleged negligence occurred; absence of a state-law duty defeats the claim.
- New York generally does not impose an affirmative duty on a person in the postal carrier’s position to screen or exclude third parties from entering a residential building for tenant protection absent a recognized special relationship or undertaking.
- In New York premises-security claims, owners and managers must take reasonable precautions in common areas against foreseeable criminal conduct, but they are not insurers of tenant safety.
- Foreseeability of the criminal act—often shown through prior similar incidents or comparable notice—is central to determining whether additional security measures were required and whether failure to provide them constitutes breach.
- Summary judgment is appropriate when the plaintiff cannot produce evidence sufficient for a reasonable jury to find a cognizable duty or a breach under governing state law standards.

## Conclusion

The Second Circuit held that New York law imposed no duty on the postal carrier to protect the tenant by excluding unknown entrants, and that the building’s association, managing agent, and unit owner were not shown to have unreasonably failed to provide security measures in light of the record on foreseeability; summary judgment for all appealed defendants was therefore affirmed.


Kazanoff v. United States, 945 F.2d 32 (2d Cir. 1991)