We agree with the IAS Court that plaintiff's inference that the assailant must have entered the lobby through the unlocked front door rather than either the interior stairwell or the elevator, because she neither heard the interior door nor saw the light from the elevator, is too speculative to satisfy her burden of coming forward with evidence tending to show that the assailant was an intruder and not a building resident or invitee, even when considered in conjunction with plaintiff's sworn statements that she had never previously seen the partially masked assailant (see, Burgos v. Aqueduct Realty Corp., 245 A.D.2d 221; Tolliver v. New York City Hous. Auth., 238 A.D.2d 187; Borrero v. New York City Hous. Auth., 236 A.D.2d 262). We have considered plaintiff's other arguments and find them to be without merit.
Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Wallach, Williams and Andrias, JJ.