Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the defendants' motion for summary judgment is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.
It is well settled that a landowner has a duty to maintain its property in a reasonably safe condition and to take reasonable precautionary measures to protect tenants from reasonably foreseeable criminal acts of third persons ( see, Miller v State of New York, 62 NY2d 506; Siino v Reices, 216 AD2d 552; Johnson v Slocum Realty Corp., 191 AD2d 613). This duty is premised on the landowner's control over the premises ( see, Johnson v Slocum Realty Corp., supra; Blatt v New York City Hous. Auth., 123 AD2d 591, 592). A landlord, however, is not an insurer of its tenants ( see, Nallan v Helmsley-Spear, Inc., 50 NY2d 507). Absent authority to control the conduct of a third person, a landowner does not have a duty to protect a tenant from the conduct of another tenant ( see, Siino v Reices, supra). In the instant case, the defendants established on their motion for summary judgment that the conduct of the tenant-assailant in their building was not reasonably foreseeable. Moreover, the plaintiffs opposition papers, which consisted of conclusory allegations, were insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact ( see, Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557).