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
“Professional” Standard of Care Can Be Required Based Solely on Nature of Services Provided
Error to Impeach Defendant Re: Failure to Offer Exculpatory Version to Police; Error to Comment on Defendant’s Post-Arrest Silence (Harmless However)
DEFENDANT WAS NOT ADEQUATELY INFORMED ABOUT HIS SENTENCING EXPOSURE, THE NATURE OF THE CHARGES AND THE RISKS OF REPRESENTING HIMSELF; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFFS RAISED QUESTIONS OF FACT (1) WHETHER THE POLICE ACTED IN RECKLESS DISREGARD OF THE SAFETY OF OTHERS DURING A HIGH-SPEED CHASE AND IN FAILING TO NOTIFY THE DISPATCHER OF THE CHASE, AND (2) WHETHER THE CHASE WAS A PROXIMATE OR CONCURRENT CAUSE OF PLAINTFFS’ ACCIDENT (THERE WAS NO CONTACT WITH EITHER VEHICLE INVOLVED IN THE CHASE) (FIRST DEPT).
THE INCAPACITATED PERSON’S SON SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN REPLACED AS GUARDIAN BY A NON-FAMILY-MEMBER IN THE ABSENCE OF A TESTIMONIAL HEARING (FIRST DEPT).
QUESTION OF FACT RAISED BY CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE, PLAINTIFF STRUCK ON HER HEAD BY A FALLING OBJECT IN AN ELEVATOR WHEN DEFENDANT WAS WORKING ON AN ADJACENT SHAFT, NO NEED TO PLEAD RES IPSA LOQUITUR TO ASSERT IT, RECORD INSUFFICIENT TO CONSIDER APPLICABILITY OF RES IPSA LOQUITUR (FIRST DEPT).
Subcontractor Who Is Not Vicariously Liable for the Acts or Omissions of Its Subcontractors Under Labor Law 200 May Be Vicariously Liable for those Acts or Omissions Under Labor Law 241 (6)
THERE ARE QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANTS WERE NOTIFIED THAT THE ELEVATOR DOORS CLOSED TOO FAST AND WHETHER REPAIRS TO THE DOOR COULD BE RELATED TO THE CLOSING VELOCITY; PLAINTIFF ALLEGED HIS THUMB WAS CAUGHT IN THE CLOSING DOOR; DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT 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

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...