SIGNIFICANT CASE SUMMARIES
New York Case Summary
Azizy v. Hunts Point Terminal Produce Coop. Ass’n
New York Supreme Court, Bronx County
2025 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 5587
Decided: June 6, 2025
Summary judgment entered for Defendants where they could not foresee an assault and had taken the minimum precautions necessary for premises security.
Background
This action arises out of a targeted criminal assault on Plaintiffs Mahbub Azizy and Khalil Mohammad at the Hunts Point Terminal Produce Market (“the Market”) while there to buy produce. The City owns the land on which the Market sits, and leases it to Defendant, Hunts Point Terminal Produce Copp. The Market abuts the Bronx River on one side, and is surrounded by high, wire-topped walls on the other three sides. There are three secure entrances to the market, one for vehicles known as “the toll plaza,” and two for pedestrians. All persons entering the Market must present a valid government-issued identification. There is only one exit from the Market, and all the entrances and the exit are manned by security personnel. Inside the Market, armed security personnel are divided between fixed posts and roving patrols. There are security cameras throughout the Market. Azizy and Mohammad were attacked shortly after midnight on August 12, 2015. There were between 7 and 10 security personnel on duty that night, the majority of whom were patrolling the Market grounds. A light pole stood about 20 feet from where the incident occurred outside the truck and a patrol car passed by the location a few minutes before the attack. At approximately 12:55 a.m., four individuals assaulted Azizy and Mohammad. According to Detective of the New York City Police Department, one of the perpetrators entered the Market shortly before midnight in a car with a false license plate.
Holding
Defendants Hunts Point Terminal Produce Cooperative Association, Inc. (“Hunts Point”) and the City of New York (“the City”) moved for summary judgment, seeking the dismissal of Plaintiffs’ Consolidated Complaint. Defendants, as owners and operators of the Market, had a duty to provide necessary security at the Market. Here, Defendants established that they could not have foreseen the assault on Plaintiffs. The Court opined that Defendants satisfied their duty to provide security at the Market and could not have foreseen the attack on Plaintiffs. The Court determined that Defendants were therefore not liable for Plaintiffs’ injuries. Defendant’s Motion for summary judgment was granted and the Complaint was dismissed.
Questions about this case can be directed to Meagan Gabriel at (646) 298-3630 or mgabriel@tthlaw.com.