Can a private property owner be liable for failing to prevent a plaintiff from urinating on their property?

Applying our rationale to the record before us, we conclude that a fact question remains as to the plaintiffs [83 N.Y.2d 530] users' recreational intent, if any here, within the meaning of the statute during their sojourn down the rail access road to find a private place to urinate. If the owners can demonstrate some recreational purpose, within the objective features of the statute, the owners are entitled to dismissal under the immunity statute. If the plaintiffs' purpose was entirely nonrecreational activity as understood under the immunity statute, then General Obligations Law 9-103 does not save the owners from lawsuit exposure. In such instances, liability will be determined in accordance with the dictates of New York's customary property owner principles (see, Basso v. Miller, 40 N.Y.2d 233, 386 N.Y.S.2d 564, 352 N.E.2d 868).