Justice David Schmidt
Parra sued to recover damages for personal injuries he sustained when he fell from the roof of a building located in Brooklyn. Parra contended that he was caused to fall from the roof of the building because the defendants were negligent in their ownership and maintenance of the building, as they allowed a dangerous condition to exist in that they failed to provide adequate security to him, that they knew that people frequented the roof for the purpose of participating in illegal behavior, and that they failed to lock access to the roof and provide an alarm system. Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing that Parra's complaint cannot be sustained as it is based on sheer speculation. The court granted defendants' motion, finding no evidence that they breached a duty owed to Parra as they did not have a duty to prevent his access to the roof. The court added that the fact that Parra was able to access and be on the roof did not proximately cause his injuries since the mere gaining of access to the roof, by itself, did not cause him to fall and suffer his injuries.
