You are here: / / Question of Fact Whether Out of Possession Landlord, Based on the Terms...
, ,

Question of Fact Whether Out of Possession Landlord, Based on the Terms of the Lease, Had a Duty to Keep the Premises Safe (Labor Law 200)

The Second Department determined the provisions of a lease raised a question of fact about whether an out-of-possession landlord had a duty to keep the premises safe:

“Labor Law § 200 is a codification of the common-law duty of an owner or general contractor to provide workers with a safe place to work” … .  * * * …[T]o the extent that the plaintiff’s claims were based on a dangerous condition on the premises, specifically the structural design, construction, and condition of a portion of the floor, the defendants failed to establish their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. “An out-of-possession landlord generally will not be responsible for injuries occurring on its premises unless the landlord has a duty imposed by statute or assumed by contract or a course of conduct” … . Here, the lease submitted by the defendants in support of their motion provided, among other things, that the defendants were required to “repair the damaged structural parts of the Premises,” that they were “not required to repair or replace any equipment, fixtures, furnishings or decorations unless originally installed by Landlord,” and that they retained the “right to enter into and upon said premises, or any part thereof . . . for the purpose of . . . making such repairs or alterations therein as may be necessary for the safety and preservation thereof.” Based on these provisions, under the circumstances of this case, the defendants failed to establish as a matter of law that they did not have a duty imposed by contract to remedy the specific dangerous or defective condition alleged here. Thus, to prevail on their motion, the defendants were required to establish that they neither created the alleged dangerous or defective condition nor had actual or constructive notice thereof … . Here, the defendants failed to establish, prima facie, that they did not create the dangerous or defective condition alleged by the plaintiff to have contributed to his fall.  Quituizaca v Tucchiarone, 2014 NY Slip Op 02024, 2nd Dept 3-26-14

 

You might also like
DEFENDANT COMMITTED CRIMES IN ONE COUNTY AND LED THE POLICE ON A CAR CHASE WHICH ENDED IN ANOTHER COUNTY; SOME OF THE CHARGES STEMMED FROM THE CAR CHASE; THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE INSTRUCTED THE JURY THAT THE PEOPLE HAD GEOGRAPHIC JURISDICTION OVER ALL THE COUNTS IF THE PEOPLE HAD JURISDICTION OVER ONE COUNT (SECOND DEPT).
LEVEL OF SUPERVISORY CONTROL NEEDED TO SUPPORT A LABOR LAW 200 CAUSE OF ACTION AND THE CRITERIA FOR SETTING ASIDE A VERDICT AS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE EXPLAINED.
EVIDENCE DID NOT SUPPORT TEMPORARY REMOVAL OF CHILD FROM FATHER’S CUSTODY DURING THE PENDENCY OF A CHILD PROTECTIVE PROCEEDING (SECOND DEPT).
PROSECUTOR’S SUMMATION AMOUNTED TO MISCONDUCT, 911 CALL SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED AS PRESENT SENSE IMPRESSION OR AN EXCITED UTTERANCE, CROSS-EXAMINATION OF COMPLAINANT UNDULY RESTRICTED.
DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED BY FANNIE MAE IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE BUSINESS RECORDS EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE, FANNIE MAE’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
PETITIONER’S PUBLIC ASSISTANCE BENEFITS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN TERMINATED, NOTICE DID NOT SPECIFY SPECIFIC INSTANCES OF A FAILURE TO COOPERATION WITH EMPLOYMENT TRAINING AND SOME EVIDENCE PRESENTED AT THE HEARING WAS NOT INCLUDED IN THE NOTICE, PETITIONER’S DUE PROCESS RIGHTS WERE VIOLATED (SECOND DEPT).
THE BANK DID NOT COMPLY WITH THE “SEPARATE ENVELOPE” RULE OF RPAPL 1304 WHICH REQUIRES THAT NOTHING ELSE BE INCLUDED IN THE ENVELOPE WITH THE NOTICE OF FORECLOSURE; THE BANK SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN AWARDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT).
ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT NEVER ANSWERED THE COMPLAINT, HE APPEARED BY MAKING A MOTION TO DISMISS AND PARTICIPATED IN THE LITIGATION, THEREFORE DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO VACATE THE DEFAULT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; DISMISSAL OF THE ACTION FOR FAILURE TO INCLUDE A NECESSARY PARTY OR THE FAILURE TO JOIN OR SUBSTITUTE A PARTY WAS NOT WARRANTED (SECOND 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

Dismissal of Deported Defendant’s Appeal (Without Prejudice) Appropriate... Basketball Player Assumed Risk of Running Into Glass Doors Behind Baseline