In Molina v. Appula Mgt. Corp.,1 the Appellate Division, First Department, dismissed claims against a landlord and property manager arising from a devastating apartment-building fire intentionally set by a tenant, finding that the landlord had no duty to evict or control the arsonist.
Several tenants alleged they were injured after another tenant used gasoline to set fire to the building. One plaintiff testified that, before the fire, he warned management that the tenant had threatened to “kill everyone” and had been seen bringing gasoline containers into the building. Based on those reports, the trial court found factual issues as to whether the landlord should have investigated and taken steps to protect residents.
The First Department reversed, holding that the trial court applied the wrong legal standard. The lower court analyzed the case as a negligent-security claim, which typically involves crimes committed by third parties who are not tenants or otherwise authorized to be on the property. Under that standard, property owners may have a duty to take reasonable precautions against foreseeable criminal conduct.
The appellate court explained that this case was different because the person who started the fire was a lawful tenant. As a result, the proper question was whether the landlord had the authority, ability, and opportunity to control the tenant’s conduct. The court found that the landlord had no legal basis to evict the tenant before the fire and no recognized duty under New York State law to investigate, monitor, or otherwise control him. Because the landlord lacked the ability to prevent the tenant’s actions, the landlord could not be held liable for the injuries caused by the arson.
This decision clarifies that claims involving crimes committed by tenants are not analyzed under traditional negligent-security principles. Instead, liability depends on whether the landlord had a legal right and practical ability to control the tenant’s conduct. Without that authority, even prior complaints about threats or suspicious behavior may be insufficient to impose liability for a tenant’s intentional criminal acts.
If you have any questions regarding the content of this alert, please contact Bridget Daley Atkinson, associate, at batkinson@barclaydamon.com; Matthew Larkin, Torts & Products Liability Defense Practice Area chair, at mlarkin@barclaydamon.com; or another member of the firm’s Torts & Products Liability Defense Practice Area.
1247 A.D.3d 573 (1st Dep't 2026).