You are here: / / A NON-DEFECTIVE CELLAR DOOR CLOSED AND STRUCK PLAINTIFF’S HEAD; THE...
,

A NON-DEFECTIVE CELLAR DOOR CLOSED AND STRUCK PLAINTIFF’S HEAD; THE LEASE DID NOT REQUIRE THE DEFENDANT OUT-OF-POSSESSION LANDLORD TO MAINTAIN THE PREMISES; AND THERE WAS NO STRUCTURAL DEFECT; THE LANDLORD’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the defendant out-of-possession landlord (West 16th) was not liable for an injury from a non-defective cellar door which closed and struck plaintiff’s head:

It is well established that an out-of-possession landlord like West 16th “is generally not liable for negligence with respect to the condition of the demised premises unless it (1) is contractually obligated to make repairs or maintain the premises, or (2) has a contractual right to reenter, inspect and make needed repairs and liability is based on a significant structural or design defect that is contrary to a specific statutory safety provision” … .

The lease did not obligate West 16th to maintain or repair the cellar doors or to install an auxiliary safety device on the cellar doors, which were fully functional and not broken in any way. …

Further, the alleged defect is not a structural defect contrary to a specific statutory safety provision. … [W]e have previously held that the failure to install a safety device to hold such doors open—the precise negligence alleged against West 16th herein—was “not a structural defect contrary to a specific statutory safety provision” … . Matias v West 16th Realty LLC, 2020 NY Slip Op 08000, First Dept 12-29-20

 

You might also like
Failure to Submit Expert Affidavit In Support of Meterological Data Precluded Summary Judgment Based Upon Defendant City’s Assertion It Did Not Have Sufficient Time to Remove Snow and Ice from a Sidewalk
PLAINTIFFS’ LEGAL MALPRACTICE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED; PLAINTIFFS’ 2010 BREACH OF A CONDOMINIUM-SALE CONTRACT ACTION WAS DISMISSED ON STATUTE OF FRAUDS GROUNDS; WHEN A WRITTEN CONTRACT SUBSEQUENTLY SURFACED, DEFENDANT ATTORNEYS DID NOT MOVE TO RENEW, VACATE OR APPEAL THE ORDER (FIRST DEPT).
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE DISCONTINUANCE OF A PRIOR FORECLOSURE ACTION DE-ACCELERATED THE MORTGAGE RENDERING THE INSTANT ACTION TIMELY (FIRST DEPT).
GENERAL OBLIGATIONS LAW 5-321 VOIDS A LEASE PROVISION ABSOLVING THE LANDLORD OF LIABILITY FOR DAMAGE TO A TENANT’S PROPERTY CAUSED BY THE LANDLORD’S NEGLIGENCE, BUT DOES NOT VOID A LEASE PROVISION ABSOLVING THE LANDLORD OF LIABILITY FOR THE TENANT’S LOST PROFITS CAUSED BY THE LANDLORD’S NEGLIGENCE (FIRST DEPT).
CHALLENGE TO THE JURY INSTRUCTION ON CAUSATION OF DEATH IS SUBJECT TO THE PRESERVATION REQUIREMENT; DEFENDANT’S FAILURE TO OBJECT PRECLUDES REVIEW; STRONG DISSENT ARGUED THE JURY INSTRUCTION IS REVIEWABLE BECAUSE IT RELIEVED THE PEOPLE OF THEIR BURDEN OF PROOF.
THE JURY COULD HAVE REASONABLY FOUND PLAINTIFF’S REGULAR USE OF THE UNLIGHTED SUBWAY STAIRWAY WAS NOT NEGLIGENT, PLAINTIFF’S VERDICT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SET ASIDE.
PLAINTIFF STEPPED IN A HOLE WHEN DELIVERING TILES TO THE WORK SITE; HE WAS PERFORMING WORK “NECESSARY AND INCIDENTAL” TO THE INSTALLATION OF THE TILES AND THEREFORE WAS PROTECTED BY LABOR LAW 240(1); A SUBCONTRACTOR WILL NOT BE LIABLE UNDER THE LABOR LAW AS A STATUTORY AGENT OF THE OWNER OR GENERAL CONTRACTOR UNLESS THE SUBCONTRACTOR HAS AUTHORITY OVER THE AREA WHERE PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF WAS STRUCK BY AN AIR CONDITIONER WHEN TWO OF THE FOUR RODS ATTACHING THE AIR CONDITIONER TO THE CEILING DETACHED AND ONE END OF THE UNIT FELL; QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE AIR CONDITIONER WAS A FALLING OBJECT WHICH SHOULD HAVE BEEN SECURED WITHIN THE MEANING OF LABOR LAW 240 (1) (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

THE DENIAL OF A MOTION TO PRECLUDE EVIDENCE WAS NOT AN APPEALABLE ORDER (FIRST... THE DEFENDANT LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANIES FUNCTIONED AS A SINGLE INTEGRATED...