Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You link has only legal theoretical speculation mumbo jumbo. He admits there's no precedent, likely because there've not been cases. If there was any real issue here, that's pretty striking since wide distribution of recorded CCTV systems had been a fact of life in NYC for well over a decade (or maybe two.)
In point of fact, having CCTV is place, while not required by laws, is now largely seen as part of a minimum level of protection. I could easily see a situation where someone gets attacked in their building, which doesn't have CCTV, and since the PD doesn't have video to use, the victim could sue the LL for not having that minimum level of protection. I see that as more likely than a lawsuit because of the presence of CCTV.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mathjak107
Nothing is a problem until someone makes it a problem .
Don’t say I am not correct because most attorneys will tell you the same thing .as a landlord you expose yourself to law suits .
Besides our building attorney and my son saying the same thing , here is another ny attorney who specializes in these kinds of security cases ,warning about it .
“Ken Kirschenbaum, Esq., is a New York-licensed lawyer practicing with Kirschenbaum & Kirschenbaum PC, a Long Island legal firm with a rich history of assisting clients in security and alarm related matters. “
“ The issue of camera installation continues to plague property owners and security dealers because there is so little precedent to rely upon.
“The public's perception of CCTV coverage -- or for that matter guard coverage -- is probably not accurate with reality. Rarely is CCTV manned and more often than not security guards are instructed not to get involved in an incident other than to communicate with the police to report an incident.
A reasonable person on the premises should be able to figure out what kind of security exists on the premises, and an owner creating a false sense of security should expect to be held responsible, not necessarily for the entire injury or loss, but contributing to it by the injured party not taking other security measures because of the false sense of security.”
You link has only legal theoretical speculation mumbo jumbo. He admits there's no precedent, likely because there've not been cases. If there was any real issue here, that's pretty striking since wide distribution of recorded CCTV systems had been a fact of life in NYC for well over a decade (or maybe two.)
In point of fact, having CCTV is place, while not required by laws, is now largely seen as part of a minimum level of protection. I could easily see a situation where someone gets attacked in their building, which doesn't have CCTV, and since the PD doesn't have video to use, the victim could sue the LL for not having that minimum level of protection. I see that as more likely than a lawsuit because of the presence of CCTV.
Where do you see there are no cases …..civil law suits happen daily on all kinds of things …there are no precedence set in civil law suits unless there is something extraordinary about them.
Ever see a precedence set on judge Judy ?
Last edited by mathjak107; 04-27-2022 at 11:48 AM..
As per the lawyer article you linked, there are no precedents driving liability cases for the use of CCTV systems. If cases were coming through, precedents would be being set. And he didn't cite any cases driving his opinion, making it sound very theoretical. And given how litigious society has become, if people were filing, and, especially winning cases, he's have something to cite.
I'm sorry, but unless you can come up with cases where buildings/companies have been sued for normal use of CCTV systems, and they plaintiffs won, this is a complete fallacy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mathjak107
Where do you see there are no cases …..civil law suits happen daily on all kinds of things …there are no precedence set in civil law suits unless there is something extraordinary about them.
Walk down any block in Manhattan, it's not a little strange to find a building without security cameras. I live in a coop. We have security cameras. We also have professional management who manage a large number of buildings. They deal with legal liability issue of all kinds. They've never mentioned any issues about this to us, and we just replaced our video system (which the manager knew about.) This is so far under the radar that it really doesn't exist.
And note an issue doesn't have to be real to generate a lawsuit. It generally had to be real to WIN a lawsuit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mathjak107
You don’t need the conclusion ,all you need to know is landlords had to hire attorneys because they were sued.
Our building isn’t putting any cameras in for that reason .you can argue it to the cows come home
Spending thousands of dollars to be found not liable isn’t a win.
Well ask any attorney who specializes in this stuff and who make a living from either defending landlords or suing them and profit in these suits either way and they are pretty much in agreement , you are opening a Pandora’s box of potential trouble
It is never a good idea for the landlord to do it because it could make him liable for security issues
When a landlord installs security cameras it is like trying to be a little bit pregnant
Nearly every rental building nowadays has cameras outside, in lobby and vestibule areas. They also have cameras in package rooms and other common areas. A LL as owner of property does *NOT* need tenant consent to install said cameras.
Basically it comes down to established case and other laws. There is no mandated right to privacy in public areas. Thus a property owner is free to use cameras and even audio in such parts of building. Where lines are drawn is in regards to what happens inside apartments. That is where tenants like anyone else have an expectation of privacy.
Nearly every rental building nowadays has cameras outside, in lobby and vestibule areas. They also have cameras in package rooms and other common areas. A LL as owner of property does *NOT* need tenant consent to install said cameras.
Basically it comes down to established case and other laws. There is no mandated right to privacy in public areas. Thus a property owner is free to use cameras and even audio in such parts of building. Where lines are drawn is in regards to what happens inside apartments. That is where tenants like anyone else have an expectation of privacy.
Absolutely right.
No person should compromise safety for fear of being sued because
of the possibility of a frivolous case being propped up center stage by a famous lawyer.
Cameras are designed for the good of the people
but if I get smacked over the head by a mugger and his I phone
should we ban all I phones?
I think not................. Why?
There will be just as many good people with Iphones recording the incident
which will be used as evidence and eventually lead to arrest...............
nuff said..................
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
