You are here: / / ONE PLAINTIFF-TENANT TESTIFIED HE MADE SEVERAL COMPLAINTS TO THE LANDLORD...
,

ONE PLAINTIFF-TENANT TESTIFIED HE MADE SEVERAL COMPLAINTS TO THE LANDLORD DEFENDANTS ABOUT THE TENANT WHO SET FIRE TO THE APARTMENT BUILDING, INFORMING THE DEFENDANTS THAT THE TENANT THREATENED “TO KILL EVERYONE” IN THE BUILDING AND WAS SEEN CARRYING GASOLINE TANKS INTO THE BUILDING; THE DEFENDANT LANDLORDS DID NOT HAVE A DUTY TO PREVENT THE TENANT FROM STARTING THE FIRE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the landlord defendants did not have a duty to investigate, monitor, or control a tenant who set fire to the five-story building injuring the plaintiff-tenants:

One of the plaintiffs testified that he made several complaints to defendants concerning the tenant’s behavior before the incident. Specifically, he reported to defendants that the tenant threatened “to kill everyone” in the building and was seen carrying gasoline tanks into the building. The motion court found that this testimony “raise[d] issues of fact as to whether defendants failed to take minimal measures to investigate the presence of gasoline in the apartment, and to protect the occupants from the risk of fire arising out of the presence of gasoline.”

The motion court erred in applying the “minimal precaution” standard set forth in negligent security cases because the assailant here was not a third-party nontenant … . Rather, he was a tenant in the building who was lawfully permitted to be there at the time of the fire. The appropriate test is, therefore, whether defendants lacked the “authority, ability, and opportunity to control” the tenant’s actions such that they had a duty to prevent him from starting the fire …  . Applying that standard to the facts here, defendants had no authority or ability to evict the tenant under the lease or New York law prior to the fire … . Moreover, plaintiffs failed to establish a clear basis under New York law for defendants to investigate, monitor, or control the tenant which could have prevented him from setting the fire … . Accordingly, defendants established their entitlement to summary judgment on the basis of their inability to prevent the tenant from starting the fire that caused plaintiffs’ injuries. Molina v Appula Mgt. Corp., 2026 NY Slip Op 01603 First Dept 3-19-26

Practice Point: The negligent-security-minimal-precaution standard of care for landlords applies only to security re: the actions of non-tenants. Here it was a tenant who set fire to the apartment building and injured other tenants. The appropriate test for the landlord’s duty re: a tenant’s actions is whether the landlord has the authority, ability, and opportunity to control the tenant’s actions under the lease or New York law, which was not the case here.

 

You might also like
RIGHT TO TESTIFY BEFORE A GRAND JURY IS NOT A RIGHT RESERVED TO A DEFENDANT, IT IS A STRATEGIC DECISION TO BE MADE BY COUNSEL.
THE SEARCH WAS NOT INCIDENT TO ARREST AS THE SUPPRESSION COURT RULED, CASE REMITTED FOR CONSIDERATION OF AN ALTERNATE GROUND FOR A VALID SEARCH WHICH WAS ARGUED BUT NOT RULED UPON BELOW. ​
SNATCHING A PURSE DANGLING FROM THE VICTIM’S ARM DID NOT INVOVLE THE PHYSICAL FORCE NECESSARY FOR ROBBERY THIRD, RENDERING THE CONVICTION AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE; REDUCED TO PETIT LARCENY (FIRST DEPT).
FAILURE TO INSTRUCT THE JURY THAT AN ACQUITTAL ON THE TOP COUNT BASED UPON THE JUSTIFICATION DEFENSE REQUIRED ACQUITTAL ON THE REMAINING CHARGES IS REVERSIBLE ERROR, DESPITE THE FAILURE TO PRESERVE THE ERROR (FIRST DEPT).
THE EVIDENCE FATHER NEGLECTED THE DAUGHTER (EXCESSIVE CORPORAL PUNISHMENT) WAS SUFFICIENT; BUT THE EVIDENCE FATHER DERIVATIVELY NEGLECTED THE SON WAS NOT (FIRST DEPT).
HERE THE LEVEL-THREE STOP AND FRISK FOR A SUSPECTED FIREARM WAS VALID; CRITERIA EXPLAINED (FIRST DEPT).
Motion to Renew Was Not Based Upon a Change in the Applicable Law—Motion Court Had Simply Ignored the Controlling Precedent—Therefore the Motion Was Actually a Motion to Reargue, the Denial of Which Is Not Appealable
THE COMPLAINT DID NOT STATE CAUSES OF ACTION FOR BREACH OF IMPLIED WARRANTY FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE OR BREACH OF IMPLIED WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY (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

MOTHER’S MENTAL ILLNESS AND HER REQUEST FOR RESPITE CARE BECAUSE SHE WAS... A HOSPITAL HAS A DUTY TO RETAIN AN INTOXICATED PATIENT WHO HAS BEEN ADMITTED...