Liu v. Rajacic

Background

Daming Liu sued Michelle Rajacic and 142 East 33rd Street Realty Corp. The First Amended Complaint asserted claims for assault, battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, conversion, negligence, and negligence per se. Only 142 East moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which permits dismissal when a complaint does not state a legally sufficient claim.

According to the Complaint, Liu booked a stay in Rajacic’s apartment from December 29, 2021, through January 4, 2022, and paid Rajacic $2,500 through Airbnb. After Liu accidentally canceled the booking, Rajacic assured him that he could stay as planned. Liu alleged that, while he was away retrieving luggage, Rajacic entered the apartment, found cash in his belongings, pepper-sprayed him when he returned, and took his property. Liu alleged that 142 East owned and managed the building, required Rajacic to register Airbnb guests, maintained cameras and onsite employees, and controlled access to the building.

Intentional-Tort Claims

The court dismissed Liu’s claims against 142 East for assault, battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and conversion. Under New York law, intentional torts require intent, not merely negligent conduct. The Complaint attributed the attack and alleged theft to Rajacic and did not allege facts showing that 142 East itself acted with tortious intent.

Liu argued that 142 East was responsible for Rajacic’s conduct under a principal-agent theory. The court found that the Complaint did not adequately allege an agency relationship because it did not show that Rajacic acted for 142 East and subject to its control. The allegations that 142 East controlled building access and required guest registration were not enough; the Complaint did not allege that 142 East approved reservations, set prices, or received a benefit from Rajacic’s rental business.

The court also held that, even if an agency relationship existed, Rajacic’s alleged attack and theft would not be attributed to 142 East. The alleged authorization concerned operating the short-term rental business, not attacking Liu or stealing his property, and the alleged conduct was motivated by Rajacic’s personal reasons.

The court rejected Liu’s argument that an innkeeper rule made 142 East responsible for his lost property. The Complaint did not assert a separate strict-liability claim against an innkeeper. In addition, the allegations did not show that 142 East was in the business of providing temporary accommodations, accepting guests’ property for safekeeping, contracting with guests, interacting with them, making assurances to them, or receiving payment or another benefit from them.

Negligence Claims

The court also dismissed the negligence and negligence-per-se claims against 142 East. Under New York law, negligence requires a duty, a breach, and resulting injury. Although landlords generally must take reasonable precautions against foreseeable criminal acts on their property in some circumstances, the court held that 142 East had no general duty to protect Liu from Rajacic, who was a resident and tenant. The Complaint did not allege unusual circumstances showing that 142 East had the ability or a reasonable opportunity to control Rajacic.

The court rejected Liu’s assertion that 142 East had assumed a security duty. The security assurances described in the Complaint were made by Rajacic, not 142 East, and therefore did not create a duty by 142 East to protect Liu from Rajacic.

Liu also relied on New York state laws and New York City ordinances restricting certain short-term rentals. The court explained that negligence per se can apply when a violated statute protects the plaintiff’s class from the type of harm that occurred. It held that Liu had not alleged that the apartment fell within the category of dwellings covered by the cited laws. It further held that the laws addressed overcrowding, housing availability, rents, and neighborhood conditions—not theft, assault, battery, or emotional distress caused by a tenant.

Disposition

The court granted 142 East’s motion to dismiss, and the claims against 142 East were dismissed. The court permitted Liu, if he wished, to request leave by March 2, 2023, to file a Second Amended Complaint addressing the identified deficiencies. The opinion does not state a disposition of the claims against Rajacic.