A woman’s claim demanding tens of thousands of dollars from a building owner represented by Goldberg Segalla in connection with the vandalization of her car was dismissed by a New York judge.

The case was brought by a woman whose car was parked on the bottom floor of a parking garage of a residential building in the Bronx. An unknown individual broke into the building’s garage, put an axe inside the woman’s car door and poured baking soda into the vehicle’s gas tank.

Goldberg Segalla attorney Stephen J. Grillo represented the owner and managing agent of the building, who was sued by the plaintiff for $50,000.

Among the claims made in the suit by the woman was that the building did not provide proper services, have working security cameras, and lacked other security measures that could have played a role in deterring the vandal.

The case was heard in Bronx Civil Court.

The plaintiff, who represented herself, attempted to utilize her civil complaint as a vehicle to bring any, and all, grievances against our client, without regard to their relevancy to the sole vandalism incident. In arguing her case, however, the plaintiff was unaware she had signed a prior security release/acknowledgment with the building as part of her tenant agreement, and further revealed she received an insurance payment for the total loss of her vehicle stemming from the vandalism incident.

Stephen, who is based in Manhattan and is a member of Goldberg Segalla’s Civil Litigation and Trial practice group, developed the case and opted to make a motion to dismiss based on the prior signed security acknowledgement and the insurance payment she received, arguing a complete defense was proper on its merits in addition to there being no realized damages. During oral arguments, Plaintiff brought to the Courts attention other grievances against our client where Stephen was successfully able to defend by identifying those allegations as being outside the scope of the complaint and improper for this Court to rule on. Following oral arguments, Stephen’s motion was granted and the claim in its entirety was dropped against our client with prejudice.