Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.
The plaintiff Taria Smith was sexually assaulted in a vacant apartment owned by the defendant, New York City Housing Authority. She was a visitor at the building attending a party on the fourth floor along with a substantial number of other persons, including at least one of her assailants. She commenced this action against the defendant for allegedly failing to maintain a safe building because the defendant was allegedly aware that the unlocked vacant apartment where the attack took place had been used as a hangout by neighborhood youths and that drug transactions took place outside its door. Furthermore, the plaintiff and a police officer who had arrived on the scene on the night of the assault testified that the front door of the building was not locked that evening.
Landlords have a common-law duty to take minimal precautions to protect tenants and visitors from foreseeable harm including a third party's foreseeable criminal conduct ( see, Blatt v. New York City Hous. Auth., 123 A.D.2d 591, 592; Jacqueline S. v. City of New York, 81 N.Y.2d 288). A visitor may recover damages from a landlord only upon a showing that the landlord's negligent conduct was a proximate cause of the injury ( see, Miller v. State of New York, 62 N.Y.2d 506).
In cases where there is an allegation that the entrance to the premises was negligently secured, a plaintiff can recover only if the assailant was an intruder, since even a fully secured entrance would not keep out a tenant or someone allowed into the building by a tenant ( see, Burgos v. Aqueduct Realty Corp., 92 N.Y.2d 544). Contrary to the plaintiff's contention, the defendant has made a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law ( see, Alvarez v. Prospect Hosp., 68 N.Y.2d 320; see, Zuckerman v. City of New York, 49 N.Y.2d 557). The plaintiff has failed to present competent evidence in admissible form to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the assailant was an intruder in the building with no right or privilege to be present ( see, Irizarry v. New York City Hous. Auth., 253 A.D.2d 539) and whether the defendant's conduct was a proximate cause of her injuries ( see, Miller v. State of New York, supra). Therefore, the defendant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law ( see, Zuckerman v. City of New York, supra).
O'Brien, J. P., Friedmann, H. Miller and Smith, JJ., concur.