You are here: / / THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER WATER ON THE FLOOR RESULTED FROM A...
, , ,

THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER WATER ON THE FLOOR RESULTED FROM A RECURRING LEAK WHICH SHOULD HAVE BEEN NOTICED BY THE NYC HOUSING AUTHORITY; THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE THE ROOF-REPAIR CONTRACTORS HIRED BY THE HOUSING AUTHORITY LAUNCHED AN INSTRUMENT OF HARM; SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN AWARDED TO THE HOUSING AUTHORITY IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE BUT WAS PROPERLY AWARDED TO THE CONTRACTORS (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined summary judgment should not have been granted to defendant NYC Housing Authority (NYCHA) in this slip and fall case. However, summary judgment was properly granted to the roof-repair contractors hired by the NYCHA to ensure the roof was watertight. There was no evidence the contractors launched an instrument of harm causing the accumulation of water on the floor which allegedly caused plaintiff’s fall. But there was evidence the water on the floor was caused by a recurring leak which should have been noticed by the NYCHA:

… [T]he Ruiz [eyewitness] affidavit established that leaks had existed in the ceiling for a long period of time before the accident, and that water from the ceiling had caused the accident. The photographs of the ceiling show discoloration and peeling paint that could be suggestive of a longstanding, “visible and apparent” condition — dripping water – that NYCHA’s practices and procedures unreasonably failed to observe … . May’s testimony that had he seen a leak he would have placed a bucket underneath it and notified his supervisor fails to account for why he or anybody at NYCHA did not notice the obvious condition of the ceiling, nor does the evidence that there were no complaints regarding leaks on the 20th floor explain why NYCHA’s maintenance staff did not notice it.

… [T]he fact that NYCHA completed the roof replacement before the accident does not absolve it of liability as a landowner. NYCHA failed to establish, through an expert affidavit or otherwise, that any condition that may have caused the leaks discussed in the Ruiz affidavit was actually addressed by the project. However, because [defendants] Liro and Corbex are not landowners but rather mere contractors hired by NYCHA to replace the roofs, they owed no direct duty to plaintiff, but could only be liable to the extent that they launched an instrument of harm, that plaintiff detrimentally relied on their performance of their respective contracts with NYCHA, or that they entirely replaced NYCHA’s obligation to maintain the premises in a safe condition (see Espinal v Melville Snow Contrs., 98 NY2d 136, 140 [2002]). There is no evidence to suggest that either of those three conditions existed here. Williams v New York City Hous. Auth., 2020 NY Slip Op 03063, First Dept 5-28-20

 

You might also like
INDEMNITOR WAS NOT NOTIFIED OF A TAX AUDIT UNTIL A TAX ASSESSMENT WAS IMPOSED, UNDER THE CONTRACT, PREJUDICE SUFFICIENT TO RELIEVE THE INDEMNITOR OF THE CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATION TO INDEMNIFY NEED NOT ENTAIL TANGIBLE ECONOMIC LOSS, IT WAS ENOUGH THE INDEMNITOR WAS DENIED THE OPPORTUNITY TO CONTROL THE DEFENSE OF THE AUDIT.
PLAINTIFF RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT RE: THE NEGLIGENT APPLICATION OF FLOOR WAX IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE (FIRST DEPT).
LONG-ARM JURISDICTION DID NOT REACH AN AUDITING FIRM IN THE UK AND CONVERSION CAUSES OF ACTION FAILED BECAUSE THE CONVERTED FUNDS WERE NOT IDENTIFIABLE AFTER THEY HAD BEEN INVESTED.
THE DEPOSIT OF FULL PAYMENT OF JUDGMENTS IN A COURT MONITORED ESCROW ACCOUNT DID NOT STOP THE ACCRUAL OF POST-JUDGMENT INTEREST (FIRST DEPT).
SILENCE DOES NOT CONSTITUTE WAIVER; HERE THE NONPARTY DID NOT EXPRESSLY WAIVE THE COMMON INTEREST, WORK PRODUCT OR TRIAL PREPARATION PRIVILEGES WITH RESPECT TO SUBPOENAED DOCUMENTS (FIRST DEPT).
Confusing Jury Instruction Re: the Justification Defense Required Reversal of Murder Conviction in the Interest of Justice/Defendant’s Attorney Should Have Been Allowed to Testify at the Suppression Hearing—There Was a Question of Fact Whether the Attorney Called and Told the Police He Represented the Defendant and Defendant Should Not Be Questioned
PAYMENT GUARANTEES NOT ENTITLED TO EXPEDITED TREATMENT PURSUANT TO CPLR 3213 AS INSTRUMENTS FOR THE PAYMENT OF MONEY ONLY, REFERENCE TO OTHER DOCUMENTS WAS NEEDED.
THE CONTRACT WAS BETWEEN CORPORATIONS IN DIFFERENT STATES, THEREFORE INTERSTATE COMMERCE WAS IMPLICATED AND THE FEDERAL ARBITRATION ACT (FAA) APPLIED; THE CONTRACT PROPERLY PROVIDED THAT THE ARBIRTRATOR, NOT A COURT, WILL DECIDE GATEWAY ISSUES OF ARBITRABILITY (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

NEW RULE ALLOWING THE NYC CIVILIAN COMPLAINT REVIEW BOARD TO INVESTIGATE SEXUAL... PLAINTIFF BANK NEVER REVOKED THE ACCELERATION OF THE MORTGAGE DEBT; FIFTH FORECLOSURE...