The jury's special verdict that defendant's negligence was not a proximate cause of plaintiff's injuries is supported by the record. Plaintiff was unable to establish how or when the serial rapist entered her building; that his ability to enter would have been substantially affected had defendant installed locks; or that the presence of locks would have deterred this rapist from attacking plaintiff (see, Wright v. New York City Hous. Auth., 208 A.D.2d 327, 330-331; Kirsten M. v. Bettina Equities Co., 222 A.D.2d 201, lv denied 88 N.Y.2d 813; Schwartz v. Niki Trading Corp., 222 A.D.2d 214, lv denied 87 N.Y.2d 810).
While, at times, the conduct of both attorneys fell below professional standards, there is no evidence that their conduct substantially influenced or determined the outcome (cf., Escobar v. Seatrain Lines, 175 A.D.2d 741, 744), or that the verdict was "induced by conduct creating and calculating to create prejudicial misapprehension, mistake or false impression on the part of [the] jury" (Nicholas v. Rosenthal, 283 App. Div. 9, 12).
We have considered plaintiffs' remaining claims and find them to be without merit.
Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Milonas, Rosenberger and Williams, JJ.