What is the test for determining whether a bank has a duty of care owed to a customer for failing to prevent an individual from entering the bank's premises?

The first inquiry regarding "status" is easy, as the bank concedes that common law classifications of status are no longer determinative in assessing the duty of care owed by the bank to its customers. It is now well established that the duty owed is one of "reasonable care under the circumstances with foreseeability, as the measure of liability" (Basso v. Miller, 40 N.Y.2d 233, 241, 386 N.Y.S.2d 564, 352 N.E.2d 868). The injured party's status remains relevant, however, in assessing the foreseeability of his or her presence on the premises and the probability that that person might suffer injury.

The next and more difficult task is an examination of the facts to ascertain "whether the foreseeability of the presence of an entrant on the premises is too remote, given the nature of the risk and the burdens that would be imposed on the bank to adequately guard against it." (Quinlan v. Cecchini, 41 N.Y.2d 686, 689, 394 N.Y.S.2d 872, 363 N.E.2d 578).