When are Landlords Responsible for Crimes at Rentals? Chicopee Housing Authority, Former Director Named in Wrongful Death Suit

By Kimberly Rau, MassLandlords, Inc.

Six individuals are suing the Chicopee Housing Authority and its former executive director, Monica Blazic, in a wrongful death lawsuit following a 2021 murder at one of its properties. They say the housing providers knew the suspect, a tenant, was dangerous and should have done more to protect its residents and their guests.

In September 2021, Domingo Arocho, 67, was visiting his girlfriend at the CHA-owned George D. Robinson apartments, when fellow tenant Urayoann Urimagua-Guraboa, 73, allegedly stabbed him in front of his girlfriend and other guests and neighbors. Arocho died as a result of the attack, and Urimagua-Guraboa was charged with murder.

Now, family and other witnesses are suing the CHA and Blazic for damages, stating they knew Urimagua-Guraboa was a threat based on prior run-ins with the law and incidents at CHA-owned properties.

Besides the case against the Chicopee Housing Authority and Monica Blazic, this article will also discuss under what circumstances landlords may find themselves held liable for criminal activity in their rentals.

An Altercation Ends in Death

On Sept. 10, 2021, Domingo Arocho was visiting his girlfriend Candida Laracuente at her home at the George D. Robinson Apartments. An altercation began, at which time Urimagua-Guraboa allegedly stabbed Arocho 13 times in front of witnesses.

“[Urimagua-Guraboa] also attempted to kill Ms. Laracuente, but she was able to escape,” the complaint reads. “After he was satisfied Mr. Arocho was dead, [Urimagua-Guraboa] walked back towards his unit, shouting ‘Who’s next?’ while holding the bloodied knife.”

When police arrived at the scene, multiple witnesses identified Urimagua-Guraboa as the perpetrator.

Media coverage in the days following the incident quoted police reports that stated “multiple eyewitnesses to this incident had consistent stories that Urimagua-Guraboa approached Arocho after a verbal argument and stabbed him multiple times. Arocho attempted to defend himself with a wooden stick during this altercation.”

Urimagua-Guraboa reportedly told police he was at home when Arocho attacked him first with a wooden stick, but did not deny stabbing Arocho.

Police reports state that when they searched Urimagua-Guraboa, they recovered a folding knife, which the defendant stated was the knife he used to stab Arocho. He was arrested and ultimately charged with murder.

Arocho was pronounced dead at Baystate Medical Center. His family members and others who witnessed the attack are the individuals bringing the wrongful death suit against the CHA and Blazic.

Wrongful Death vs. Criminal Charges

Wrongful death lawsuits are civil lawsuits that seek compensation for damages from responsible parties. This is different from a criminal case, which can result in jail time or other punishment. A defendant can be charged civilly, criminally or both. (Consider O.J. Simpson, who was found not guilty of murder in his criminal trial, but later found guilty and ordered to pay monetary damages in a civil trial brought by the Goldman family.)

In this instance, separate criminal charges have been filed against Urimagua-Guraboa, the man who allegedly stabbed Arocho. The case is being tried in the Hampden County Superior Court and is still ongoing, with Urimagua-Guraboa held without bail.

The case against the CHA and Blazic is a civil suit that alleges negligence on the part of the defendants. Unlike a criminal lawsuit, where the prosecution must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, a civil case requires that the prosecution prove negligence only by a preponderance of evidence.

In other words, they must prove that the charges against the defendants are more likely than not to be true. This is a much easier thing to prove than guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The four elements of negligence that a plaintiff must prove to have a successful case are: 1) duty of care (the defendant had a legal obligation to act reasonably and prudently to prevent harm to the plaintiff); 2) a breach of that duty of care (the defendant did not act reasonably or prudently to prevent harm); 3) causation (the actions of the defendant led directly to the injuries in question); and 4) damages (the actual harm that was suffered).

The Claims Against the CHA

The plaintiffs brought a case against the CHA and Monica Blazic because they believe the CHA knew the accused was dangerous and refused to remove him from the housing program. Their complaint alleges that, given Urimagua-Guraboa’s history of violence on CHA property, Blazic and the CHA were aware of the danger he presented to others.

The plaintiffs further allege CHA violated its own admission and continued occupancy policy for residence when it allowed a violent person to remain in the program.

According to court documents, Urimagua-Guraboa was almost evicted from his residence at the CHA-operated apartments at Benoit Circle in April 2019 following an altercation with fellow tenant Maritza Ortiz. According to the plaintiffs’ complaint, Ortiz told police that Urimagua-Guraboa hit her with a cane for attempting to remove a hose he had tied to their shared balcony. He reportedly also grabbed her by the neck and told her he was going to kill her. Court records show both Urimagua-Guraboa and Ortiz were served notices to quit for threatening each other. Both were allowed to remain in the housing program after signing agreements not to contact the other. In October 2019, Urimagua-Guraboa was relocated to the George D. Robinson apartments for reasons not found in the public record.

Urimagua-Guraboa ran into trouble at his new place as well. Court documents allege that there were multiple complaints about his behavior, but he remained in residence. His immediate next-door neighbor, Candida Laracuente, called the police more than once regarding Urimagua-Guraboa’s behavior, which reportedly included threats of violence. The most recent phone call to the police before the incident in question was on Sept. 8, 2021.

“There is no question CHA, its officers, administrators…and/or employees were aware of this incident,” the plaintiffs’ complaint reads.

Monica Blazic, shown here third from left in a 2015 photo with the Landfill Closure Alternatives Advisory Committee, is specifically named in the lawsuit that alleges she and the Chicopee Housing Authority were negligent in preventing the death of Domingo Arocho.

Monica Blazic and the CHA’s Contentious History

This is not the first time the Chicopee Housing Authority has been in the news for allegations of misconduct, nor the first time Blazic has been named in a lawsuit.

In April 2021, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for Massachusetts filed a complaint against Blazic, who at the time was the executive director of the CHA, alleging she discriminated against disabled tenants. That complaint was later amended to include allegations of discrimination against Black and Hispanic tenants on the basis of race and national origin.

“Since at least 2013, Blazic has made statements with respect to the rental of CHA dwellings demonstrating that she prefers White tenants to Black and Hispanic tenants,” the amended complaint states.

The CHA denied the allegations and said it planned to defend against them. There has not been a resolution to the lawsuit to date, and Blazic has since retired (she was listed as executive director through mid-2023).

This appears to be a pattern. The executive director before Blazic, James Lynch, retired prior to a 2009 audit report that showed, aside from sanitary code violations and slow repair turnaround times, a potential conflict of interest between Lynch and the bank that held CHA’s money market accounts. Lynch was on the board of the bank and did not disclose this relationship to the CHA. The matter was referred to the State Ethics Commission, but was dropped as Lynch was no longer the executive director.

Unfortunately for Blazic, her status as a retiree won’t provide immunity from being named in the current lawsuit, as she was still in her role at the time of the murder.

Is the break-in something you could be held responsible for? It depends on the circumstances. [Lic: Ady for Unsplash]

When Can Landlords be Held Liable for Crimes at Their Rentals?

Historically, when it comes to civil cases against housing providers, determining whether the landlords were held responsible comes down to the particular circumstances of the incident.

Typically, landlords cannot be held responsible for crimes that were unforeseeable. In 2015, the Massachusetts appeals court upheld the initial ruling on Belizaire v. Furr, which stated a landlord was not responsible for a 2009 shooting that resulted in the death of a visitor at the landlord’s rental property. Court documents state the tenants were having a party when an unknown individual shot four people, one of whom died. The administrator of the estate sued the landlord, but the appeals court determined the event was not foreseeable. The property did not have a history of serious violence or issues with firearms, and a connection between the tenant and the shooter could not be made.

“As a general rule, a landowner does not owe a duty to take affirmative steps to protect against dangerous or unlawful acts of third persons,” the ruling stated, quoting Luoni v. Berube. That case decided a homeowner was not responsible for injuries resulting from a fireworks display they had not authorized.

However, there are exceptions. The appeal also cited Fund v. Hotel Lenox of Boston, Inc., a case that was overturned on appeal. In that case, the appeals court overturned a summary judgment and ruled that the hotel was liable for a stabbing of a guest, as there had been “numerous nonviolent crimes and occasional violent crime in [the] hotel, and inadequate security.”

“More particularly, liability has been imposed in the rare cases in which a person legally on the premises is attacked, and the owner or landlord knew of or should have known of both the previous attacks and the potential for a recurrence based on a failure to take measures to make the premises safer,” the ruling for Belizare stated, referencing Fund and other cases. “In these circumstances, the court has found that a ‘landlord or property owner may be liable for failing to prevent reasonably foreseeable criminal acts.’”

In other words, if you know something is likely to become an issue, and you don’t do anything about it, you could be held accountable if a problem occurs. If there is no way you could have predicted or prevented an incident from occurring, the courts are less likely to hold you responsible.

It is on these grounds that the plaintiffs brought a case against the CHA and Monica Blazic.

How to Avoid Being Sued for Injuries at Your Rental Property

For civil negligence lawsuits, a tenant must prove you had a duty to keep them safe, that you were negligent in that duty, and that your actions (or lack thereof) resulted in injury. They also have to prove they were, in fact, injured by your actions.

Not every lawsuit against a landlord will be able to prove all four tenets of negligence. But even if you win, going to court is a time-consuming, emotionally draining and often very expensive process. Not only do you want to avoid losing in court, you also want to avoid getting there in the first place.

Fortunately, as the old saying goes, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. What does that mean?

“Courts are likely to hold landlords responsible for tenant injuries when a simple, reasonably priced precaution could've eliminated the dangerous condition. For example, painting a bright stripe on an unexpected step up to a patio is a simple measure a landlord could take to prevent a tenant from tripping,” states an All Law blog article about landlord–tenant injuries.

“On the other hand, a landlord wouldn't be expected to fix a situation that posed a very low risk if it would be exorbitantly expensive to do so,” it continues.

So, keep your properties well-maintained and up to code (which you are required to do anyway under the state Sanitary Code). This warranty of habitability is your promise to your renters that their home will be safe for them.

Make sure your stair railings are secure, your fire alarms are in working order and (especially in multifamily homes) the common areas and egresses are free of clutter and other hazards. Respond to maintenance requests and reports of problems quickly. And make sure all your plumbing and electrical work is performed by a licensed contractor, as state law requires.

Domestic Violence and Rental Properties

If an unknown assailant comes in off the street and hurts your renter, you are unlikely to be charged with negligence (though if your property is in a high crime area and you neglect to keep the property secure, you could be liable).

However, when it comes to injuries from other people, domestic violence puts tenants, primarily women, at risk of harm. This is abuse from someone who lives or lived with your renter, or is/was in an intimate relationship with them. If your tenant makes you aware of domestic violence issues, follow legal guidelines for changing the locks and keeping your renter safe.

If you have a multifamily property, make sure you are screening your tenants carefully. You can’t deny someone tenancy based on arrests, but you can use convictions to refuse an applicant under certain circumstances (consult an attorney if you are unsure). These protections are in place so you can promote a safe environment for all.

And, if you receive reports of violence from other renters, thereby violating your lease, you can start a for-cause eviction process. As always, check with your lawyer to ensure you are handling this in a lawful manner.

Conclusion

As a landlord, there will always be unforeseen problems that come up (usually at the least opportune moment). But by doing your due diligence and keeping your properties safe and in good repair, you can avoid a lot of preventable problems.

As for the Chicopee Housing Authority and Monica Blazic, it could be a while before the negligence suit against them concludes. Considering their history, we hope they move forward in a less problematic fashion than has been alleged. Regardless, we will follow this story and update as necessary.