You are here: / / LESSEE RESPONSIBLE FOR MAINTAINING THE LAUNDRY ROOM COULD BE LIABLE FOR...
,

LESSEE RESPONSIBLE FOR MAINTAINING THE LAUNDRY ROOM COULD BE LIABLE FOR INJURY CAUSED BY A DEFECTIVE WASHING MACHINE, LESSEE DID NOT ELIMINATE QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER IT HAD CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE DEFECT, DISSENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, over a dissent, determined that defendant Coinmach, which leased the laundry room, was not entitled to summary judgment in this personal injury case. Plaintiff alleged the soap tray on the washing machine she was using came all the way out of the machine when she pulled it open, causing her to fall backward from an elevated step in front of the machine. The Second Department determined Coinmach, the lessee of the laundry room, could be held liable because it was responsible for maintaining the laundry room. The court further held that Coinmach did not eliminate questions of fact concerning its constructive notice of the defect which caused the tray to pull out of the machine, because there was no evidence when the machine was last inspected:

Coinmach was the lessee of the laundry room with “the sole and exclusive occupancy, possession and control” for a term of seven years. In return, Coinmach agreed to make monthly rent payments. A tenant has a common-law duty to keep the premises it occupies in a reasonably safe condition, even when the landlord has explicitly agreed in the lease to maintain the premises … . …

Coinmach failed to make a prima facie showing that it did not have constructive notice that the soap tray was broken. Coinmach’s area vice president testified at his deposition that Coinmach did not perform any routine maintenance on the machines, which were serviced whenever Coinmach received a service call requesting repairs. The area vice president testified that at each such service call, the technician would perform a “touch and feel test” on each machine, which would include opening the soap tray to make sure it was secure. However, there is no evidence in the record as to the date of the last service call, and therefore no evidence as to when Coinmach last inspected the subject soap tray before the injured plaintiff’s accident … . Gatto v Coinmach Corp., 2019 NY Slip Op 03956, Second Dept 5-22-19

 

You might also like
THE TOWN DID NOT ADEQUATELY EXPLAIN ITS FAILURE TO TURN OVER CERTAIN DOCUMENTS WHICH WERE CREDIBLY ALLEGED TO EXIST IN THE FOIL REQUEST; THE FOIL PETITION WAS REINSTATED AND THE MATTER REMITTED (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE STRICT COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304 AND THEREFORE WAS NOT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION; DEFENDANT’S MERE DENIAL OF RECEIPT OF THE NOTICE DID NOT WARRANT SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN DEFENDANT’S FAVOR (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF, A TRAFFIC ENFORCEMENT OFFICER, WAS WALKING IN THE STREET WHEN DEFENDANT STRUCK HIM AFTER TAKING HIS EYES OFF THE ROAD, PLAINTIFF DID NOT HAVE TO DEMONSTRATE FREEDOM FROM COMPARATIVE FAULT, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT). ​
How to Handle a Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim When Documentary Evidence Is Considered Explained/Dismissal of Foreclosure Action Based on Lack of Standing Is Not a Dismissal on the Merits/Striking of a Foreclosure Complaint for Failure to Comply with a Discovery Order Is Not a Dismissal on the Merits
In an Appeal from an Order Made Upon Appellant’s Default, Only Matters Contested Below Can Be Heard—Here the Only Matter Contested Below Was Appellants’ Request for an Adjournment to Obtain New Counsel—Relevant Review Criteria Explained
THE CONSEQUENCES OF DEFENDANT’S WAIVER OF APPEAL WERE EITHER NOT EXPLAINED OR WERE WRONGLY EXPLAINED, THE WAIVER WAS INVALID, THE INITIAL COMMUNICATION BY THE POLICE OFFICER WAS NOT A LEVEL ONE DE BOUR INQUIRY, THE SWITCHBLADE DEFENDANT THREW AWAY WHEN THE COMMUNICATION WAS MADE WAS PROPERLY ADMITTED IN EVIDENCE (SECOND DEPT).
ARBITRATOR’S RULING WAS IRRATIONAL AND VIOLATED CPLR 1209 IN THIS NO-FAULT INSURANCE ACTION, HEALTH CARE PROVIDER, AS AN ASSIGNEE, WAS ENTITLED TO ARBITRATE ITS CLAIM FOR CARE PROVIDED TO THE INJURED INFANT (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION BASED UPON A DEFECTIVE LADDER, BUT NOT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 241(6) CAUSE OF ACTION, PLAINTIFF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE FREEDOM FROM COMPARATIVE FAULT.

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

PLAINTIFF INJURED HIS NECK ATTEMPTING TO THROW A HEAVY HOSE TO AN AREA 15 TO... PLAINTIFF HAD NO MEMORY OF THE ACCIDENT AND THE JURY WAS GIVEN THE NOSEWORTHY...