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
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER WORK ON AIR CONDITIONER WAS REPAIR COVERED BY LABOR LAW 240(1).
THE FOUR-MONTH STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR BRINGING AN ARTICLE 78 PETITION CHALLENGING TERMINATION OF SECTION 8 RENT-SUBSIDY BENEFITS STARTS WHEN THE TENANT BECOMES AWARE OF THE TERMINATION; THE PETITION WAS TIME-BARRED (FIRST DEPT).
PLACING DEFENDANT IN HANDCUFFS ELEVATED THE INVESTIGATORY STOP TO AN ILLEGAL ARREST, MOTION TO SUPPRESS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).
FAMILY OFFENSE OF HARASSMENT UPHELD, SEXUAL MISCONDUCT, ASSAULT SECOND AND CRIMINAL OBSTRUCTION OF BREATHING NOT SUPPORTED BY THE EVIDENCE (FIRST DEPT).
UNDER CAYMAN ISLANDS LAW, THE SHAREHOLDER’S DERIVATIVE CAUSES OF ACTION WERE PROPERLY DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).
THE MOTION TO DISMISS THIS ACTION TO QUIET TITLE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONVERTED TO A MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT TO WHICH PLAINTIFFS HAD NO OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND; THE COMPLAINT STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION TO QUIET TITLE PURSUANT TO RPAPL ARTICLE 15 (FIRST DEPT).
THE TRIAL COURT PROPERLY ALLOWED EXPERT TESTIMONY ABOUT “COMMUNITY GUNS,” A CONCEPT USED BY GANGS TO MAKE GUNS AVAILABLE WHILE AVOIDING BEING CAUGHT POSSESSING THE GUNS (FIRST DEPT).
SELF-EXECUTING CONDITIONAL DISCOVERY ORDER BECAME ABSOLUTE UPON NON-COMPLIANCE; A MOTION TO VACATE, NOT AN APPEAL, IS THE PROPER PROCEDURE TO CONTEST THE ORDER ON THE GROUND OF EXCUSABLE DEFAULT; DEFENDANTS TOOK NO ACTION TO AVOID THE DEFAULT (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...