You are here: / / PLAINTIFF FELL THROUGH A STOREFRONT WINDOW IN DEFENDANT PLANET ROSE’S...
, ,

PLAINTIFF FELL THROUGH A STOREFRONT WINDOW IN DEFENDANT PLANET ROSE’S KARAOKE BAR; GIVEN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE FAILURE TO INSTALL TEMPERED GLASS MAY HAVE BEEN NEGLIGENT; BY THE TERMS OF THE LEASE, THE OUT-OF-POSSESSION LANDLORD, DEFENDANT 219 AVE. A, COULD NOT BE HELD LIABLE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the defendant 219 Ave. A was an out-of-possession landlord which, by the terms of the lease, was not obligated to repair or maintain the premises where plaintiff’s fall occurred. Plaintiff was standing on a couch in defendant Planet Rose’s karaoke bar when she fell backwards through a storefront window:

… [T]he owner of Planet Rose acknowledged that when vandals smashed another window in the storefront years earlier, the glazier recommended tempered glass as the best option for a storefront, and she accepted that recommendation. She also testified that there were many times over the years that patrons stood on the couch, as shown in photographs posted on Planet Rose’s social media. Thus, the record presents issues of fact as to whether defendants were negligent in failing to use tempered glass in the window to prevent a foreseeable injury … .

… Given the evidence that patrons of the karaoke bar sometimes stood on the couch, plaintiff’s conduct was not extraordinary or unforeseeable, and it therefore cannot be said that the setup at the bar merely furnished the occasion for the harm … .

219 Ave. A demonstrated that it had relinquished sufficient control of the premises to be deemed an out-of-possession landlord, and as such, was not contractually obligated to make repairs or maintain the premises … . Accordingly, its liability is limited to claims “based on a significant structural or design defect that is contrary to a specific statutory safety provision,” which are not at issue here … . Kitziger v 219 Ave. A. NYC LLC, 2023 NY Slip Op 00239, First Dept 1-19-23

Practice Point: Because patrons of defendant karaoke bar stood on the couch to dance, plaintiff’s fall through the storefront window was foreseeable and the failure to install tempered glass may have been negligent. This was not a case where the condition (the glass storefront window) merely furnished the occasion for the accident, as opposed to a proximate cause. By the terms of the lease the out-of-possession landlord was responsible only for structural repairs which were not at issue.

 

You might also like
THE DECISION TO ENFORCE ANIMAL CRUELTY AND OTHER LAWS AND REGULATIONS WHICH MAY PERTAIN TO THE RITUAL KILLING OF CHICKENS AS A RELIGIOUS PRACTICE IS DISCRETIONARY, THEREFORE A MANDAMUS ACTION TO ENFORCE THE LAWS DOES NOT LIE.
WHERE (1) THE DISPUTE IS ABOUT WHETHER THE TENANT IS OBLIGATED TO REMOVE PROPERTY FROM THE PREMISES, (2) THE TENANT TIMELY SURRENDERS THE PREMISES, AND (3), THE LEASE IS SILENT ABOUT THE PAYMENT OF RENT AFTER THE TERM OF THE LEASE, USE AND OCCUPANCY DAMAGES ARE NOT AVAILABLE TO THE LANDLORD (FIRST DEPT).
Deliberate Avoidance of Service of Process 
Owners’ Intent, at the Time Plaintiff Was Injured, to Use the Property As a Second Home Triggered the Homeowners’ Exemption to Labor Law Liability Notwithstanding that the Owners Never Occupied the Property and Started Leasing It Two Years After the Accident
PLAINTIFF WAS STRUCK BY A CABLE WHICH WHIPLASHED WHEN A TRUCK RAN INTO IT; THE INDUSTRIAL CODE PROVISION REQUIRING SAFETY MEASURES WHEN WORKING NEAR TRAFFIC APPLIED; THE LABOR LAW 241(6) CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).
SUIT SEEKING INDEMNIFICATION FOR A SETTLEMENT PAID TO DEFENDANT’S EMPLOYEE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, RELEVANT LAW EXPLAINED (FIRST DEPT).
BAR AND SECURITY COMPANY COULD BE LIABLE FOR AN ASSAULT BY A SECURITY GUARD UNDER THE DOCTRINE OF RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR.
HOMEOWNER EXEMPTION APPLIED TO THE CHURCH IN THIS LABOR LAW 240 (1), 241 (6) AND 200 ACTION STEMMING FROM A FALL FROM A SCAFFOLD, FAILURE TO PLEAD THE EXEMPTION AS A DEFENSE DID NOT PRECLUDE RAISING IT IN A SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION, ARCHDIOCESE WAS NOT AN AGENT OF THE OWNER, NO LABOR LAW 200 LIABILITY BECAUSE PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYER SUPERVISED AND CONTROLLED THE MEANS AND MANNER OF WORK (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

PLAINTIFF BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE NOTICE OF FORECLOSURE WAS MAILED IN ACCORDANCE... AFTER A JUROR CAME FORWARD DURING DELIBERATIONS TO SAY SHE THOUGHT THE DEFENDANT...