Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The plaintiff seeks to impose liability on the defendants, the owner and manager of an apartment building, based upon their alleged failure to repair the lock of the front door to the building. The plaintiff was injured as the result of the criminal acts of a third party who entered the building and assaulted her.
Although the plaintiff offered proof establishing that prior burglaries had taken place in the building, she offered no proof that the defendants had notice of the prior crimes. In the absence of any notice to them of prior criminal activity, the defendants cannot be held liable for the injuries inflicted by a criminal who intruded into their building (see, e.g, Mendez v 441 Ocean Ave., 234 A.D.2d 524; Howard-Seay v. Dorchester Towers, 227 A.D.2d 525; Gleason v. 76-10 Blvd. Owners' Corp., 193 A.D.2d 715). Also, the record is devoid of proof establishing that a functioning lock would have prevented the assault on the plaintiff, and therefore there is no proof of causation (see, e.g, Rodriguez v. New York City Hous. Auth., 87 N.Y.2d 887; Cooper v. City of New York, 213 A.D.2d 443; Rozhik v. 1600 Ocean Parkway Assocs., 208 A.D.2d 913).
Bracken, J.P., Copertino, Santucci and Altman, JJ., concur.