You are here: / / PLAINTIFF, WHO PURCHASED THE PROPERTY, SUED THE PRIOR OWNER IN NEGLIGENCE...
, ,

PLAINTIFF, WHO PURCHASED THE PROPERTY, SUED THE PRIOR OWNER IN NEGLIGENCE FOR DAMAGES STEMMING FROM PLAINTIFF’S EXPOSURE TO CHEMICAL CONTAMINATION ON THE PROPERTY; LIABILITY FOR A DANGEROUS CONDITION ON PROPERTY GENERALLY CEASES UPON TRANSFER OF THE PROPERTY; THE NEGLIGENCE CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing (modifying) Supeme Court, determined plaintiff’s negligence cause of action seeking damages for exposure to contaminants on the land plaintiff purchased from defendant city should have been dismissed. A property owner’s liability for a dangerous condition ceases upon the transfer of the property:

We … agree with defendant that the court erred in denying the motion with respect to the negligence cause of action, and we therefore further modify the order accordingly. That cause of action is based on allegations that plaintiff was injured due to a dangerous condition on the parcel of property that defendant sold to plaintiffs, i.e., chemical contamination, to which plaintiff was exposed after the sale. It is well settled that “[o]ne’s liability in negligence for the condition of land ceases when the premises pass out of one’s control before injury results. Such is the general rule” … . Thus, under that general rule, defendant’s liability for negligence based on a dangerous condition on the property ended when it sold the parcel to plaintiffs … , and “liability may be imposed upon defendant only if the allegedly dangerous condition . . . existed at the time [it] relinquished possession and control of the premises ‘and the new owner has not had a reasonable time to discover the condition, if it was unknown, and to remedy the condition once it is known’ ” … .

Here, defendant met its burden on the motion of establishing that any injury allegedly sustained by plaintiff was caused by exposure after defendant sold the property. In response, “plaintiff[s have] offered nothing to show that [they, as] the new owner[s,] did not have adequate time to discover and remedy such defects” … . Powers v City of Geneva, 2021 NY Slip Op 01684, Fourth Dept 3-19-21

 

You might also like
Release Which Specifically Refers to a Particular Incident Relates Solely to that Incident—Where Terms of the Release Are Unambiguous, Extrinsic Evidence Will Not Be Considered
DUE TO AN APPARENT DRAFTING ERROR, A 16-YEAR SENTENCE IS VALID FOR A FIRST TIME VIOLENT FELONY OFFENDER BUT IS ILLEGAL (EXCESSIVE) FOR A SECOND VIOLENT FELONY OFFENDER; THE FACIALLY ILLEGAL SENTENCE MUST BE VACATED; THE ERROR NEED NOT BE PRESERVED (FOURTH DEPT).
A PROSECUTION WITNESS’S WRITTEN STATEMENT DID NOT MEET THE CRITERIA FOR PAST RECOLLECTION RECORDED AND SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED; THE JUDGE’S USE OF THE PHRASE “POTENTIALLY AIDS” INSTEAD OF “INTENTIONALLY AIDS” IN THE ACCOMPLICE LIABILITY JURY INSTRUCTION PREJUDICED THE DEFENDANT; ALTHOUGH THE JURY INSTRUCTION ERROR WAS NOT PRESERVED, THE ISSUE WAS CONSIDERED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (FOURTH DEPT).
THE CHOICE OF FORUM CLAUSE (ARIZONA) IN THE CONTRACT IS ENFORCEABLE AND IS NOT AFFECTED BY AN ARGUMENT QUESTIONING THE VALIDITY OF A CHOICE OF LAW CLAUSE; THE FACT THAT THE NEW YORK PLAINTIFF WILL HAVE TO TRAVEL TO ARIZONA DOES NOT AFFECT THE ENFORCEABILITY OF THE CHOICE OF FORUM CLAUSE (FOURTH DEPT).
Failure to Address Youthful Offender Eligibility Required Remittal
THE EVIDENCE OF “PHYSICAL INJURY” IN THIS ASSAULT SECOND PROSECUTION WAS LEGALLY INSUFFICIENT (FOURTH DEPT).
PETITIONER WAS DENIED HIS RIGHT TO CALL WITNESSES, NEW HEARING ORDERED (FOURTH DEPT).
EXPERTS MAY NOT RELY ON DISPUTED FACTS IN RENDERING AN OPINION IN A MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CASE (FOURTH 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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

FATHER’S PETITION FOR CUSTODY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED WITHOUT MAKING... PETITIONER DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE NEGLECT PETITION WAS PROPERLY MAILED TO MOTHER...