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
EVIDENCE OF DEBRIS ON FLOOR WAS SUFFICIENT TO RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANTS WERE LIABLE UNDER LABOR LAW 241(6) AND 200, PLAINTIFF STEPPED INTO A HOLE BUT DID NOT KNOW WHETHER THE HOLE WAS OBSCURED BY THE DEBRIS (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION, DEFENDANTS GENERAL CONTRACTOR AND LESSEE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED SUMMARY JUDGMENT, DEFENDANT OUT OF POSSESSION LANDLORD SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED SUMMARY JUDGMENT, CRITERIA EXPLAINED (FIRST DEPT).
DEFENDANT WAS NOT AFFORDED EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL WHEN HE WAS TOLD ONLY OF POTENTIAL IMMIGRATION CONSEQUENCES OF HIS PLEA, MATTER REMANDED TO ALLOW DEFENDANT TO MAKE A MOTION TO VACATE HIS PLEA (FIRST DEPT).
WHETHER PLAINTIFF INHALED ENOUGH ASBESTOS TO CAUSE HIS CANCER WAS THE SUBJECT OF COMPETING SIMULATION STUDIES; PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT EVIDENCE WAS NOT SUFFICIENT TO DEFEAT DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (FIRST DEPT).
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH EXECUTIVE-COMPENSATION-CAP AND CONFLICT-OF-INTEREST RULES FOR AGENCIES PROVIDING SERVICES TO DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED CHILDREN DO NOT VIOLATE THE SEPARATION OF POWERS DOCTRINE.
THERE IS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANTS LAUNCHED AN INSTRUMENT OF HARM BY ERECTING AN OPAQUE FENCE AROUND A CONSTRUCTION SITE WHICH BLOCKED DRIVERS’ AND PEDESTRIANS’ LINES OF SIGHT IN AN INTERSECTION; PLAINTIFF PEDESTRIAN WAS STRUCK BY A CAR WHEN HE STEPPED BEYOND THE FENCE INTO A LANE OF TRAFFIC (FIRST DEPT).
A COMBINED MOTION TO REARGUE AND MOTION TO RENEW IS PROPER; HERE SUPREME COURT CORRECTLY DENIED THE MOTION TO REARGUE BUT SHOULD HAVE CONSIDERED THE MOTION TO RENEW; MATTER REMANDED (FIRST DEPT). ​
IN THIS LABOR LAW 240(1) ACTION, PLAINTIFF STEPPED ON A SMALL WOODEN “PATCH” COVERING A HOLE IN THE FLOOR AND HIS LEG WENT THROUGH THE HOLE; DEFENDANT’S ARGUMENT THE ACCIDENT WAS NOT FORESEEABLE WAS REJECTED; THE PRECISE NATURE OF THE ACCIDENT NEED NOT BE FORESEEN; IT IS ENOUGH PLAINTIFF WAS SUBJECTED TO AN ELEVATION-RELATION RISK AND NO SAFETY EQUIPMENT WAS PROVIDED (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...