A New York appellate court has ruled in favor of landlords Maria and Peter Cuttitta in a case involving a shooting incident that left a plaintiff injured. The court's decision, issued on August 26, 2026, impacts personal injury claims against property owners and clarifies the responsibilities of landlords regarding security measures on their premises.
The case, known as Welch v. Cuttitta (Docket No. 2025-05012), centers around an incident that occurred on January 13, 2022, when the plaintiff, Jamaal Welch, was allegedly shot in the leg while attending an event on property owned by the Cuttittas. Welch filed a lawsuit seeking damages for his injuries, claiming that the Cuttittas failed to provide adequate security at the location.
The dispute arose when the Cuttittas sought to have the case dismissed through a motion for summary judgment. They argued that they were not responsible for the security of the premises since they were out-of-possession landlords and did not retain control over the leased property. The Supreme Court of Kings County agreed with their argument, leading to Welch's appeal to the Appellate Division.
The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York reviewed the case and ultimately upheld the lower court's decision. The ruling emphasized the legal principles surrounding the responsibilities of landlords in relation to criminal acts on their properties. According to the court, "A possessor of real property is under a duty to maintain reasonable security measures to protect those lawfully on the premises from reasonably foreseeable criminal acts of third parties." However, the court also noted that an out-of-possession landlord is not liable for injuries caused by third-party criminal acts unless they have retained control over the premises or are contractually obligated to provide security.
The court found that the Cuttittas had established that they were out-of-possession landlords and did not retain control over the premises. Furthermore, they were not contractually required to provide security for the commercial tenant operating on their property. The court stated, "the Cuttittas demonstrated, prima facie, that they had no prior notice of criminal activity or gun violence at the premises."
As a result, the court ruled that Welch failed to raise a triable issue of fact that would warrant further consideration of his claims against the Cuttittas. The decision was made by a panel of judges including Francesca E. Connolly, Cheryl E. Chambers, William G. Ford, and James P. McCormack.
This ruling has significant implications for landlords and tenants alike. It clarifies the extent of a landlord's liability in cases involving criminal acts on their properties. Landlords may find some relief in knowing they are not automatically responsible for security unless specific conditions are met, such as retaining control over the premises or having a contractual obligation to provide security.
For tenants and individuals attending events on leased properties, this ruling underscores the importance of understanding the security measures in place and the responsibilities of property owners. It also raises questions about the adequacy of security measures provided by tenants operating businesses on such properties.
Going forward, this ruling may influence how personal injury cases related to criminal acts on commercial properties are litigated. It sets a precedent that could affect future claims against landlords, particularly in cases where there is a lack of evidence showing prior criminal activity or a failure to provide security.
Details were not available in the court filing regarding whether Welch plans to appeal the decision or if there are related cases pending that could further clarify landlord liability in similar situations.