You are here: / / THE LANDOWNER AND THE TENANT TAXI COMPANY HAD THE SAME PRINCIPAL, A HOSE...
,

THE LANDOWNER AND THE TENANT TAXI COMPANY HAD THE SAME PRINCIPAL, A HOSE WAS USED BY INDEPENDENT CONTRACTORS TO WASH THE TAXIS, PLAINTIFF ALLEGEDLY SLIPPED ON THE WATER FROM THE HOSE WHICH FROZE, THE LANDOWNER DID NOT ESTABLISH IT WAS AN OUT OF POSSESSION LANDLORD, THE LANDOWNER’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, over a dissent, reversing Supreme Court, determined the landowner was not entitled to summary judgment in this slip and fall case. The principal of the property owner, 514 West, is also the principal of the tenant, Style, a taxi company. Independent contractors used a hose to wash the cars. Water from the hose froze and plaintiff allegedly slipped and fell on the ice. The First Department noted the close connection between 514 West and Style and found that 514 West did not establish it was on out-of-possession landlord:

514 West, which owns the building adjacent to the roadway in which plaintiff slipped and fell on ice, failed to make a prima facie showing of its entitlement to summary judgment, since the evidence it submitted raises genuine issues of fact about whether it created the dangerous condition … . For example, its principal, who is also the principal of codefendant Style Management Co., Inc. (Style), the taxi company housed at the building owned by 514 West, admitted that there is a hose attached to the building, which the independent contractors who work for the taxi company would use to wash the cars. It is water from this hose, which pooled in the street and then froze, that plaintiff allegedly slipped on. “It is . . . a general rule that an abutting owner is liable if, by artificial means . . . water from the property is permitted to flow onto the public sidewalk where it freezes”… . 514 West asserts that Style operated the hose, not it, thus absolving it of liability. However, 514 West fails to establish that it is an out-of-possession landlord; indeed, given the very close connection between 514 West and Style, which, again, have the same principal, it is not possible on this record to determine, as a matter of law, that the former is without liability as a landowner. Malik v Style Mgt. Co. Inc., 2019 NY Slip Op 00372, First Dept 1-22-19

 

​

You might also like
THE JURY SHOULD HAVE BEEN INSTRUCTED ON THE JUSTIFICATION DEFENSE IN THIS ASSAULT AND RESISTING ARREST CASE; DEFENDANT KICKED AND FLAILED AS HE WAS SUBDUED BY MORE THAN EIGHT POLICE OFFICERS (FIRST DEPT).
MOVING PARTY CANNOT RELY ON GAPS IN OPPOSING PARTY’S PROOF IN MOTIONS AND CROSS-MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; WITNESS-CREDIBILITY SHOULD NOT BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT AT THE SUMMARY JUDGMENT STAGE.
THE HOIST WHICH PLAINTIFF WAS OPERATING WAS A SAFETY DEVICE WITHIN THE MEANING OF LABOR LAW 240(1); WHEN PLAINTIFF OPENED THE EMERGENCY HATCH ON THE HOIST FOR A REPAIRMAN, THE HATCH DOOR SLAMMED BACK DOWN ON HIS HEAD; PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT (FIRST DEPT).
THE LOCAL LAW WHICH DISQUALIFIES CANDIDATES WHO HAVE CERTAIN FELONY CONVICTIONS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN INTERPRETED TO APPLY ONLY TO CONVICTIONS AFTER THE ENACTMENT OF THE LOCAL LAW (FIRST DEPT).
DEFENDANT WAS NOT GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND TO A RISK-ASSESSMENT THEORY RAISED FOR THE FIRST TIME AT THE HEARING; MATTER REMANDED (FIRST DEPT).
Plaintiff Entitled to Summary Judgment Re: Fall from Non-Defective Ladder After Co-Worker Who Had Been Stabilizing the Ladder Was Called Away—Defendants Did Not Demonstrate Plaintiff Was Adequately Protected—Comparative Negligence Is Not Relevant
DEFENDANT CARPET AND FLOORING SUBCONTRACTOR’S REQUEST TO INSPECT THE AREA OF THE FLOOR WHERE PLAINTIFF ALLEGEDLY STEPPED INTO AN UNGUARDED VENT HOLE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; ALTHOUGH THE VENT COVER HAD BEEN REPLACED, IT CAN NOT BE SAID THE INSPECTION WOULD BE FRUITLESS, OR THAT THE INSPECTION WOULD CAUSE UNREASONABLE ANNOYANCE, EXPENSE, EMBARRASSMENT OR OTHER PREJUDICE (FIRST DEPT).
HEARSAY EVIDENCE OF CHARGES OF WHICH SEX OFFENDER WAS ACQUITTED AND CHARGES WHICH WERE DISMISSED SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED, NEW TRIAL ORDERED.

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

APPELLATE DIVISION REDUCED DEFENDANT’S SENTENCE USING ITS PLENARY POWER,... DEFENDANT’S UNATTENDED TOW TRUCK MOVED BACKWARDS INTO PLAINTIFF’S...