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
Where the Parties’ Intent Can Be Determined from the Four Corners of the Contract, the Interpretation of the Contract is a Purely Legal Question Which Can Be Raised for the First Time on Appeal and Which Can Be Finally Determined by the Appellate Court (No Need for a Trial)
AN EMAIL INFORMING PLAINTIFF THAT DEFENDANT LAW FIRM WOULD NOT APPEAL THE RULING OF THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPELLATE PANEL DID NOT UNEQUIVOCALLY TERMINATE THE FIRM’S REPRESENTATION OF PLAINTIFF IN THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION MATTER (FIRST DEPT).
Including “Statute of Limitations” in a Catch-All Paragraph Listing Many Affirmative Defenses Did Not Provide Plaintiff with Sufficient Notice—At a Bare Minimum, the Duration of the Relevant Statute of Limitations, Six Years Here, Should Be Pled
PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISQUALIFIED; HER TESTIMONY ABOUT HER ALLEGED CONDUCT AT THE INDEPENDENT MEDICAL EXAMINATION (IME) WOULD HAVE BEEN CUMULATIVE AND DEFENDANTS COULD NOT SHOW THE IME WAS COMPROMISED IN ANY WAY (FIRST DEPT).
QUESTION OF FACT RAISED ABOUT WHETHER THE PROFFERED REASON FOR PLAINTIFF’S TERMINATION WAS PRETEXTUAL, PLAINTIFF WAS ON MEDICAL LEAVE BECAUSE OF BRAIN TUMORS, EMPLOYER’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).
FAILURE TO INSTRUCT THE JURY THAT WITNESSES WERE ACCOMPLICES AS A MATTER OF LAW REQUIRING CORROBORATION OF THEIR TESTIMONY WAS REVERSIBLE ERROR, DEFENSE COUNSEL’S FAILURE TO REQUEST THE INSTRUCTION CONSTITUTED INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE, ISSUE REACHED ON APPEAL IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (FIRST DEPT).
APPELLATE DIVISION REDUCED DEFENDANT’S SENTENCE USING ITS PLENARY POWER, DESPITE THE FACTS THAT (1) THE SENTENCE WAS WITHIN PERMISSIBLE LIMITS, (2) THE SENTENCING COURT DID NOT ABUSE ITS DISCRETION, AND (3) DEFENDANT HAD AN EXTENSIVE CRIMINAL HISTORY (FIRST DEPT).
ALTHOUGH A JURY TRIAL WAIVER IN A CONTRACT IS NOT ENFORCED WHERE A COUNTERCLAIM ASSERTS FRAUDULENT INDUCEMENT, HERE THE FRAUDULENT-INDUCEMENT COUNTERCLAIM SOUGHT RESCISSION OF THE CONTRACT, EQUITABLE RELIEF WHICH MUST BE TRIED BY THE COURT; THE MOTION TO STRIKE DEFENDANTS’ JURY-TRIAL DEMAND SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (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...