Memorandum:
Plaintiff was assaulted in his apartment and commenced this action alleging that defendant failed to provide adequate security for its tenants. Supreme Court erred in denying defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. It is undisputed that plaintiff, despite being uncertain of the identity of the individuals knocking on his apartment door, nevertheless unlocked and opened the door. Those individuals then assaulted plaintiff. The act of plaintiff in unlocking and opening the apartment door when he was uncertain who was seeking entry was an intervening cause of the assault, severing any liability of defendant for its alleged failure to provide adequate security ( see, Chang Soo Jang v. Jackson Condominium, 260 A.D.2d 420; S.M.R.K., Inc. v. 25 W. 43rd St. Co., 250 A.D.2d 487, lv denied 92 N.Y.2d 817; Elie v. Kraus, 218 A.D.2d 629, 630-631, lv dismissed 88 N.Y.2d 842). With respect to plaintiff's contention that liability may be premised on a defective peephole in plaintiff's door, defendant met its initial burden of establishing that it had no actual or constructive notice of the alleged defective condition, and plaintiff failed to raise an issue of fact ( see, Appleby v. Webb, 186 A.D.2d 1078; Brown v. Marathon Realty, 170 A.D.2d 426).