29
patrons or invitees, it is clear that "[a] landowner who engages in activities that may
cause injury to persons on adjoining premises surely owes those persons a duty to take
reasonable precautions to avoid injuring them." 532 Madison, 750 N.E.2d at 1102.
Thus, Citigroup owed a duty of care with respect to its property that extended to tenants
of adjoining properties, possibly including co-tenants in the same building. Since Con Ed
in its leased premises was either a co-tenant or an adjacent tenant of Citigroup, Citigroup
arguably owed a duty of care to Con Ed. Citigroup's Motion to Dismiss cannot properly
be adjudicated in the absence of a record that develops the full context of its relationship
with Con Ed and the surrounding circumstances.
Citigroup argues that, irrespective of any duty owed as to its own actions,
it did not have a duty to protect Con Ed from the criminal acts committed by the terrorists
on September 11. As a general rule, New York law does not impose upon persons the
duty to protect others from injuries caused by third parties. See Purdy v. Public
Administrator of County of Westchester, 526 N.E.2d 4, 7 (N.Y. 1988). However such a
duty may be imposed where: 1) a special relationship exits between the defendant and the
third party such that the defendant does have a duty to control the acts of the third party;
or 2) a special relationship exists between the defendant and the plaintiff, creating an
obligation on the part of the defendant to protect the plaintiff from harm inflicted by the
third party. See Kreindler, supra, § 6.14. Thus, "[l]andowners have a duty to protect
tenants, patrons, or invitees from foreseeable harm caused by the criminal conduct of
others while they are on the premises." Hamilton v. Beretta U.S.A. Corp., 750 N.E.2d
1055 (N.Y. 2001). This duty is imposed because the special relationship between
landowner and tenant puts the landowner in the best position to protect against potential
