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
PLAINTIFF’S INABILITY TO PINPOINT THE CAUSE OF HIS FALL FROM A LADDER DID NOT WARRANT SUMMARY JUDGMENT, THERE WAS CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE OF THE CAUSE.
PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT WAS IN THE ELEVATOR SHAFT WHEN THE ELEVATOR, OPERATING NORMALLY, DESCENDED AND CRUSHED HIM; THE ELEVATOR WAS NOT A “FALLING OBJECT” WITHIN THE MEANING OF LABOR LAW 240(1); COMPLAINT DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).
Criteria for Negligent Misrepresentation Cause of Action Explained
PORTIONS OF A REPORTER’S VIDEOTAPED INTERVIEW WITH DEFENDANT NOT PROTECTED BY SHIELD LAW BECAUSE OF RELEVANCE TO A MURDER PROSECUTION.
PLAINTIFF RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE CITY CREATED THE ROAD CONDITION WHICH CAUSED HIS SLIP AND FALL; THE CITY’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).
PETITIONERS WERE ENTITLED TO SUMMARY DETERMINATION IN THIS EXECUTIVE LAW 63 SPECIAL PROCEEDING SOUNDING IN FRAUD STEMMING FROM UNCONSCIONABLE EQUIPMENT FINANCE LEASES AND OPPRESSIVE DEBT COLLECTION PRACTICES; RESPONDENTS’ REQUEST FOR FURTHER DISCOVERY, WHICH IS DISFAVORED IN SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS, WAS PROPERLY DENIED (FIRST DEPT).
THE SUPREME COURT’S PART RULES REQUIRED PLAINTIFF TO FIRST CONFERENCE THE MATTER BEFORE MOVING TO COMPEL DEFENDANTS TO COMPLY WITH DISCOVERY DEMANDS; THE FAILURE TO CONFERENCE THE MATTER, HOWEVER, IS NOT A VALID GROUND FOR DENYING THE MOTION (FIRST DEPT).
CLAIMS BY CORRECTIONS OFFICERS SEEKING TO REQUIRE THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS TO PROVIDE TRAINING AND EQUIPMENT FOR DEALING WITH VIOLENT PRISONERS WERE NOT JUSTICIABLE (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...