SCHUSTER v. ASSOCIATES

Defendants made out a prima facie case of entitlement to summary judgment by establishing that the building's door locks were functioning properly on the day of the assault ( see Burgos v Aqueduct Realty Corp., 92 NY2d 544), and that there was a lack of evidence that the assailant was an intruder, or that there were prior acts of criminality in the building to place defendants on notice of a potential attack ( see Buckeridge v Broadie, 5 AD3d 298). In response, plaintiff failed to present evidence rendering it "more likely or more reasonable than not that [her] assailant was an intruder who gained access to the premises through a negligently maintained entrance" ( Burgos, 92 NY2d at 551).

We have considered plaintiff's other arguments and find them unavailing.