You are here: / / THE “BUILDING” DEFENDANTS AND THE COMPANY WHICH INSTALLED AND...
, ,

THE “BUILDING” DEFENDANTS AND THE COMPANY WHICH INSTALLED AND MAINTAINED THE AIR CONDITIONING UNIT WHICH ALLEGEDLY LEAKED WATER ON THE FLOOR WERE NOT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE; THE LANDLORD DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT WAS AN OUT-OF-POSSESSION LANDLORD; THE “BUILDING” DEFENDANTS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THEY DID NOT HAVE ACTUAL OR CONSTRUCTIVE KNOWLEDGE OF THE CONDITION; AND THE COMPANY WHICH INSTALLED AND MAINTAINED THE AIR CONDITIONER DID NOT SHOW IT DID NOT LAUNCH AND INSTRUMENT OF HARM (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the summary judgment motions by several defendants in this slip and fall case should not have been granted in this slip and fall case. Plaintiff alleged she slipped on water dripping from and air conditioning unit in the break room. The landlord did not demonstrate it was an out-of-possession landlord. The defendants failed to show they did not have actual of constructive notice of the condition. Superior, the company which installed the air conditioner (HVAC system], did not show that it did not launch an instrument of harm:

An out-of-possession landlord and its agent may be liable for injuries occurring on its premises if it has “retained control over the premises and has a duty imposed by statute or assumed by contract or a course of conduct” to perform maintenance and repairs … . … [The defendants] failed to establish … that they were out-of-possession landlords, that they did not assume a duty by course of conduct to maintain the area of the building at issue, including the HVAC system, and that they relinquished control over the premises to such a degree so as to extinguish their duty to maintain the premises … . * * *

… Superior’s submissions demonstrated that it entered into a contract with the … defendants’ general contractor to install the HVAC system, that the installation was completed approximately eight months before the plaintiff’s alleged slip and fall, and that, subsequently, it entered into a contract … to service and maintain at least a part of that HVAC system, and this contract was in effect at the time of the accident. Superior failed to establish … that the source of the leak at issue was not the HVAC system. Superior also failed to eliminate all triable issues of fact as to whether it launched an instrument of harm by creating the alleged recurring condition through its negligent installation or maintenance of the HVAC system … . Taliana v Hines REIT Three Huntington Quadrangle, LLC, 2021 NY Slip Op 05138, Second Dept 9-29-21

 

You might also like
PLAINTIFF WAS LEANING INSIDE THE OPEN DOOR OF A VAN WHEN THE VAN SUDDENLY MOVED FORWARD; THE RELATED VIOLATION OF THE VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW CONSTITUTED NEGLIGENCE PER SE; PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
CHILD BURNED BY HOT EMBERS IN A CAMPSITE, NEITHER THE LAST OCCUPANT OF THE CAMPSITE NOR THE LANDOWNER (THE COUNTY) WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT.
THE CHILD SUPPORT PROVISIONS OF THE STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT IN THE DIVORCE ACTION VIOLATED THE CHILD SUPPORT STANDARDS ACT AND MUST BE VACATED; THE VACATUR SHOULD HAVE EXTENDED BACK TO THE DATE OF THE STIPULATION, NOT MERELY TO THE DATE OF THE RELATED MOTION (SECOND DEPT).
​ THE DISCHARGED LAW FIRM HANDLED THE PERSONAL INJURY CASE FOR TWO YEARS; ALTHOUGH THE FIRM DID NOT SUBMIT ANY TIME RECORDS, SUPREME COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN REFUSING TO AWARD THE DISCHARGED FIRM A PORTION OF THE CONTINGENCY FEE AFTER THE CASE SETTLED (SECOND DEPT).
ALTHOUGH THE COMPLAINANT IDENTIFIED THE DEFENDANT FROM A PHOTO ARRAY IN A PROCEDURE CONDUCTED BY A POLICE OFFICER, THERE WAS NO PROOF OF THE BASIS FOR DEFENDANT’S ARREST BY ANOTHER OFFICER, THEREFORE DEFENDANT’S SUPPRESSION MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
TOWN RESIDENTS CANNOT COMPEL TOWN TO ISSUE A FORMAL DETERMINATION OF THEIR ZONING COMPLAINT AND CANNOT COMPEL THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS TO REVIEW THE FAILURE TO ISSUE SUCH A DETERMINATION (SECOND DEPT).
THE INCLUSION OF ADDITIONAL INFORMATION IN THE ENVELOPE CONTAINING THE RPAPL 1304 90-DAY NOTICE OF FORECLOSURE DID NOT VIOLATE THE “SEPARATE ENVELOPE” RULE (SECOND DEPT).
ACCIDENT REPORT WHICH DID NOT INDICATE PETITIONER WAS INJURED DID NOT NOTIFY THE CITY OF THE ESSENTIAL FACTS, THEREFORE LEAVE TO FILE LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM PROPERLY DENIED.

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

ALTHOUGH THE COMPLAINANT WAS USING ONLY HIS FISTS FIGHTING THE MUCH SMALLER... SENDING THE 90-DAY FORECLOSURE NOTICE TO TWO BORROWERS IN THE SAME ENVELOPE...