You are here: / / LANDLORD DID NOT HAVE A DUTY TO INSULATE A PIPE BECAUSE IT WAS PART OF...
,

LANDLORD DID NOT HAVE A DUTY TO INSULATE A PIPE BECAUSE IT WAS PART OF THE HEATING SYSTEM, INFANT PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED BY CONTACT WITH THE HOT PIPE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined the landlord was not required to insulate the pipe leading to the radiator because the pipe was part of the heating system (which would have been impeded by insulation). Therefore the personal injury action stemming from infant plaintiff’s contact with the hot pipe was properly dismissed:

​

Dismissal of the complaint was warranted in this action for personal injuries sustained when infant plaintiff slipped off the bed and fell against hot pipes that conveyed steam to the radiators in the apartment. The court properly concluded that defendant did not violate its common-law duty to plaintiffs in failing to insulate the hot pipes … . Plaintiffs argue that because the pipes were not the primary source of heat to the apartment, insulation would not have interfered with the functionality of the heating system … . However, even plaintiffs’ expert acknowledged that the pipes were part of the heating system and supplied some heat to the room. P.R. v New York City Hous. Auth., 2017 NY Slip Op 07955, First Dept 11-14-17

 

NEGLIGENCE (LANDLORD-TENANT, LANDLORD DID NOT HAVE A DUTY TO INSULATE A PIPE BECAUSE IT WAS PART OF THE HEATING SYSTEM, INFANT PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED BY CONTACT WITH THE HOT PIPE (FIRST DEPT))/LANDLORD-TENANT (NEGLIGENCE, LANDLORD DID NOT HAVE A DUTY TO INSULATE A PIPE BECAUSE IT WAS PART OF THE HEATING SYSTEM, INFANT PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED BY CONTACT WITH THE HOT PIPE (FIRST DEPT))/HEATING SYSTEMS  (LANDLORD-TENANT, LANDLORD DID NOT HAVE A DUTY TO INSULATE A PIPE BECAUSE IT WAS PART OF THE HEATING SYSTEM, INFANT PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED BY CONTACT WITH THE HOT PIPE (FIRST DEPT))

You might also like
JURORS WHO ENGAGED IN PREMATURE DELIBERATIONS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISCHARGED AS “GROSSLY UNQUALIFIED” ABSENT A FINDING THEY COULD NOT RENDER AN IMPARTIAL VERDICT (FIRST DEPT).
A SAFE ON A HIGH SHELF IN A HOTEL ROOM FELL ON PLAINTIFF; DEFENDANT HOTEL DID NOT ADDRESS WHEN THE SAFE WAS LAST INSPECTED; THEREFORE THE HOTEL DID NOT SHOW IT DID NOT HAVE CONSTRUCTIVE KNOWLEDGE OF THE CONDITION OF THE SAFE (FIRST DEPT).
PETITIONER’S MOTION TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, THE CITY HAD TIMELY NOTICE OF THE FACTS UNDERLYING PETITIONER’S INJURIES, THE FACTS SUPPORTING THE CITY’S NEGLIGENCE COULD HAVE BEEN DISCOVERED DURING THE INVESTIGATION WITH A MODICUM OF EFFORT, CITY DID NOT DEMONSTRATE PREJUDICE RELATING TO THE DELAY, PETITIONER’S FAILURE TO OFFER A REASONABLE EXCUSE FOR THE DELAY WAS NOT FATAL (FIRST DEPT).
THE ARRESTING DETECTIVE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO IDENTIFY THE PERSON DEPICTED IN SURVEILLANCE VIDEOS AS THE DEFENDANT, NEW TRIAL ORDERED (FIRST DEPT).
THE CASE INVOLVES A NEW JERSEY INSURANCE POLICY ISSUED TO A NEW JERSEY COMPANY WHICH WAS DOING SUBWAY WORK IN NEW YORK, PURSUANT TO A 2017 COURT OF APPEALS RULING, WHETHER NEW YORK INSURANCE LAW’S TIMELY DISCLAIMER STATUTE APPLIES DEPENDS ON WHETHER THE INSURED HAS A SUBSTANTIAL BUSINESS PRESENCE IN NEW YORK, MATTER REMITTED FOR DEVELOPMENT OF THE RECORD ON THAT ISSUE (FIRST DEPT).
FAILURE TO INSTRUCT THE JURY THAT WITNESSES WERE ACCOMPLICES AS A MATTER OF LAW REQUIRING CORROBORATION OF THEIR TESTIMONY WAS REVERSIBLE ERROR, DEFENSE COUNSEL’S FAILURE TO REQUEST THE INSTRUCTION CONSTITUTED INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE, ISSUE REACHED ON APPEAL IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (FIRST DEPT).
THE PARTIES HAD ALREADY STIPULATED TO RESTORE THE ACTION TO THE CALENDAR; THE JUDGE SHOULD HAVE GRANTED PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO VACATE THE DISMISSAL OF THE ACTION FOR FAILURE TO APPEAR AT CONFERENCES OR OUTLINE REMAINING DISCOVERY (FIRST DEPT).
SANCTIONS IMPOSED FOR A DELAYED RESPONSE TO DISCOVERY DEMANDS WERE TOO SEVERE, EFFECTIVELY PRECLUDING PROOF OF COUNTERCLAIMS CENTRAL TO THE DEFENSE; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (FIRST DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

LEASE WITH PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYER DID NOT REQUIRE LANDLORD TO MAINTAIN THE... NEW YORK LABOR LAW WORK-PAY REQUIREMENTS DO NOT APPLY TO WORK DONE OUT-OF-STATE...