You are here: / / DEFENDANT, AS AN OUT-OF-POSSESSION LANDLORD, WAS NOT LIABLE FOR AN ALLEGED...
, , ,

DEFENDANT, AS AN OUT-OF-POSSESSION LANDLORD, WAS NOT LIABLE FOR AN ALLEGED DANGEROUS CONDITION ON THE PROPERTY; PLAINTIFF’S REFERENCES TO UNPLEADED CAUSES OF ACTION (LABOR LAW 240(1) AND LABOR LAW 241(6)) IN THE BILL OF PARTICULARS WERE UNSUPPORTED; THE COMPLAINT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court and dismissing plaintiff’s complaint, determined defendant was an out-of-possession landlord who was not responsible for the alleged dangerous condition on the property and the Labor Law 240(1) and 241(6) causes of action, although mentioned in the bill of particulars, were not pleaded. Plaintiff was doing work on cabinets when she was struck by a piece of wood that flew off a table saw operated by another worker. She sued under a negligence theory (dangerous condition) and under Labor Law section 200 (which codifies common law negligence):

“[A] landowner who has transferred possession and control is generally not liable for injuries caused by dangerous conditions on the property” … . “‘An out-of-possession landlord can be held liable for injuries that occur on its premises only if the landlord has retained control over the premises and if the landlord is contractually or statutorily obligated to repair or maintain the premises or has assumed a duty to repair or maintain the premises by virtue of a course of conduct'” … .

… [T]he evidence … , including … the written lease … and transcripts of the deposition testimony … established … that the defendant was an out-of-possession landlord that had relinquished control of the subject property to Tobin and had not assumed a duty to maintain the property in a reasonably safe condition by a course of conduct … . Although the defendant reserved a right of entry under the lease, this did not provide a sufficient basis on which to impose liability upon the defendant for injuries caused by a dangerous condition, as the condition did not violate a specific statute, nor was it a significant structural or design defect … .

Modern practice permits a plaintiff, in some circumstances, to successfully oppose a motion for summary judgment by relying on an unpleaded cause of action that is supported by the plaintiff’s submissions, where the plaintiff has not engaged in unexcused protracted delay in presenting the new theory of liability… . … Here … the plaintiff’s unpleaded causes of action alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6) are not supported by the plaintiff’s submissions, as the record demonstrates that the plaintiff’s work at the time of her injury did not involve “construction, excavation or demolition work” within the meaning of Labor Law § 241(6), or “erection, demolition, repairing, altering, painting, cleaning or pointing of a building or structure” within the meaning of Labor Law § 240(1) … . Miranda v 1320 Entertainment, Inc., 2024 NY Slip Op 04313, Second Dept 8-28-24

Practice Point: Here the defendant demonstrated out-of-possession landlord status and was therefore not liable for an alleged dangerous condition on the property.​

Practice Point: Although unpleaded causes of action mentioned for the first time in the bill of particulars can be considered in opposition to a summary judgment motion, here the unpleaded Labor Law 240(1) and 241(6) causes of action were unsupported by the plaintiff’s submissions. The complaint should have been dismissed.

 

You might also like
REPAIRING A LIGHT FIXTURE IS COVERED UNDER BOTH LABOR LAW 240 (1) AND 241 (6), DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
ALTHOUGH THE LEASE DID NOT IMPOSE A DUTY ON THE TENANT TO MAINTAIN THE SIDEWALK, THE VILLAGE CODE DID; THE TENANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SIDEWALK SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
Providing 9000 Documents Without Indicating the Specific Discovery Demands to Which the Documents Related Was Improper
PLAINTIFF WAS NOT WEARING A HARD HAT AND WAS STRUCK IN THE HEAD BY DEBRIS DURING DEMOLITION WORK; PLAINTIFF ALLEGED THE FAILURE TO PROVIDE HEAD PROTECTION VIOLATED THE INDUSTRIAL CODE GIVING RISE TO A LABOR LAW 241(6) CAUSE OF ACTION; DEFENDANTS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE JOB WAS NOT A HARD HAT JOB; THEREFORE DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF SUED AN ILLINOIS SCHOOL ALLEGING THAT THE ONLINE COURSES OFFERED BY DEFENDANT SCHOOL DURING THE PANDEMIC CONSTITUTED A TRANSACTION IN NEW YORK WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE LONG-ARM STATUTE; BUT PLAINTIFF DID NOT ALLEGE SHE WAS IN NEW YORK WHEN SHE TOOK THE ONLINE COURSES; DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
FAILURE TO DISCLOSE THE SLIP AND FALL ACTION AS AN ASSET IN A BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDING DEPRIVED PLAINTIFF OF THE LEGAL CAPACITY TO SUE (SECOND DEPT).
“BEACH 12,” A NONPARTY WHICH BECAME TITLE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY AFTER PLAINTIFF FILED THE NOTICE OF PENDENCY, WAS ENTITLED TO INTERVENE IN THE FORECLOSURE ACTION AS OF RIGHT; CRITERIA EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT).
Court’s Review Powers Re: a Zoning Board’s Interpretation of an Ordinance Explained—Reviewing Court Need Not Defer to the Board’s Ruling on a Purely Legal Issue/Here Zoning Board Properly Interpreted the Ordinance—Criteria Explained

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

THE VEHICLE WHICH STRUCK PLAINTIFF’S STOPPED VEHICLE FROM BEHIND FLED... THE NYC DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION PROPERLY DENIED PETITIONER-TEACHER’S REQUEST...