You are here: / / LANDLORD DID NOT HAVE A DUTY TO INSULATE A PIPE BECAUSE IT WAS PART OF...
,

LANDLORD DID NOT HAVE A DUTY TO INSULATE A PIPE BECAUSE IT WAS PART OF THE HEATING SYSTEM, INFANT PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED BY CONTACT WITH THE HOT PIPE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined the landlord was not required to insulate the pipe leading to the radiator because the pipe was part of the heating system (which would have been impeded by insulation). Therefore the personal injury action stemming from infant plaintiff’s contact with the hot pipe was properly dismissed:

​

Dismissal of the complaint was warranted in this action for personal injuries sustained when infant plaintiff slipped off the bed and fell against hot pipes that conveyed steam to the radiators in the apartment. The court properly concluded that defendant did not violate its common-law duty to plaintiffs in failing to insulate the hot pipes … . Plaintiffs argue that because the pipes were not the primary source of heat to the apartment, insulation would not have interfered with the functionality of the heating system … . However, even plaintiffs’ expert acknowledged that the pipes were part of the heating system and supplied some heat to the room. P.R. v New York City Hous. Auth., 2017 NY Slip Op 07955, First Dept 11-14-17

 

NEGLIGENCE (LANDLORD-TENANT, LANDLORD DID NOT HAVE A DUTY TO INSULATE A PIPE BECAUSE IT WAS PART OF THE HEATING SYSTEM, INFANT PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED BY CONTACT WITH THE HOT PIPE (FIRST DEPT))/LANDLORD-TENANT (NEGLIGENCE, LANDLORD DID NOT HAVE A DUTY TO INSULATE A PIPE BECAUSE IT WAS PART OF THE HEATING SYSTEM, INFANT PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED BY CONTACT WITH THE HOT PIPE (FIRST DEPT))/HEATING SYSTEMS  (LANDLORD-TENANT, LANDLORD DID NOT HAVE A DUTY TO INSULATE A PIPE BECAUSE IT WAS PART OF THE HEATING SYSTEM, INFANT PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED BY CONTACT WITH THE HOT PIPE (FIRST DEPT))

You might also like
NO OBLIGATION TO CONTINUOUSLY MOP UP TRACKED IN WATER.
IN THIS CROSSWALK SLIP AND FALL CASE, THE FACT THAT THE MUNICIPALITY REPAIRED THE AREA FIVE MONTHS BEFORE DID NOT CONSTITUTE AN EXCEPTION TO THE PRIOR WRITTEN NOTICE REQUIREMENT (FIRST DEPT).
Criteria for Liability for Acts of Independent Contractor and for Negligent Hiring of an Independent Contractor Explained (Criteria Not Met Here)
PLAINTIFF WAS ENGAGED IN AN “ALTERING” ACTIVITY COVERED BY LABOR LAW 240 AND THE ACCIDENT–AN OBJECT FALLING DOWN A MANHOLE AND STRIKING PLAINTIFF–WAS ELEVATION-RELATED (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF FELT HIS ARM SNAP WHEN ATTEMPTING TO LIFT A 400 POUND ELEVATOR PLATFORM FOUR OR FIVE INCHES TO PLACE A PALLET JACK UNDER IT; PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).
CITY RETIREES THREATENED WITH ELIMINATION OF THEIR EXISTING HEALTH INSURANCE AND AUTOMATIC ENROLLMENT IN A MEDICARE ADVANTAGE PLAN ENTITLED TO RELIEF UNDER THEIR PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL CAUSE OF ACTION (FIRST DEPT).
A NON-DEFECTIVE CELLAR DOOR CLOSED AND STRUCK PLAINTIFF’S HEAD; THE LEASE DID NOT REQUIRE THE DEFENDANT OUT-OF-POSSESSION LANDLORD TO MAINTAIN THE PREMISES; AND THERE WAS NO STRUCTURAL DEFECT; THE LANDLORD’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).
UNDER THE FACTS, PRE-TRIAL REQUEST TO PROCEED PRO SE 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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

LEASE WITH PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYER DID NOT REQUIRE LANDLORD TO MAINTAIN THE... NEW YORK LABOR LAW WORK-PAY REQUIREMENTS DO NOT APPLY TO WORK DONE OUT-OF-STATE...