You are here: / / PLAINTIFF FELL THROUGH THE DECK OF HER APRARTMENT; DEFENDANTS DID NOT SHOW...
,

PLAINTIFF FELL THROUGH THE DECK OF HER APRARTMENT; DEFENDANTS DID NOT SHOW A LACK OF ACTUAL OR CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE; THERE WAS NO CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY ON FILE; THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE DOCTRINE OF RES IPSA LOQUITUR APPLIED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant-landlord did not demonstrate a lack of actual or constructive notice of the condition of the deck which plaintiff fell through. In addition there was a question of fact whether the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applied:

Defendants testified that they inspected the deck before purchasing the property and also obtained the services of an unidentified inspector. However, they failed to produce the inspection report or any evidence of its contents, nor did they establish that the defect in the deck could not have been discovered upon a diligent inspection … . In light of defendants’ failure to show lack of actual or constructive notice, it is of no moment that they did not create the defective condition of the deck.

… Plaintiff’s expert engineer opined that the lack of a certificate of occupancy for the property, including the deck, should have put defendants on notice that the deck was not compliant with applicable building codes and that an inspection would have uncovered weakened plywood under the deck’s tile surface.

… The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur allows an inference of negligence to be drawn where (1) the event is of a type that does not normally occur in the absence of negligence, (2) it was caused by an instrumentality within the exclusive control of the defendants, and (3) plaintiff’s actions did not contribute in any way to the occurrence … . The first and third elements are established here because “a deck being put to its regular and intended use does not ordinarily collapse in the absence of negligence,” and there is no claim that any contributory negligence by plaintiff caused the collapse … . The second element of exclusive control may be established to the extent that plaintiff’s claim is based on defendants’ failure to maintain the deck since their acquisition of the property, rather than on the illegal construction of the deck at some earlier date … . Rosario v Cao, 2024 NY Slip Op 00154, First Dept 1-11-24

Practice Point: Here the deck of plaintiff’s apartment collapsed and she fell through it. There was no certificate of occupancy on file. The elements of res ipsa loquitur were present. Defendants therefore did not demonstrate a lack of actual or constructive notice of the condition of the deck.

 

You might also like
FORMULAIC LANGUAGE INDICATING THE ACCEPTANCE OF A BID WAS SUBJECT TO A WRITTEN AGREEMENT AND DEPOSIT DID NOT NEGATE THE FORMATION OF A BINDING CONTRACT UPON ACCEPTANCE.
THE EXTENSION (NOW TO 2026) OF THE TIME FOR PARTICIPANTS IN THE 9-11 CLEANUP TO FILE CLAIMS FOR MEDICAL BENEFITS DOES NOT APPLY TO CLAIMS FOR DEATH BENEFITS BY A BENEFICIARY OF A DECEASED PARTICIPANT; HERE THE PARTICIPANT’S WIFE MADE A CLAIM FOR DEATH BENEFITS WHICH WAS PROPERLY DENIED BECAUSE THE STATUTORY DEADLINE IN WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW SECTION 28 HAD PASSED (CT APP).
In a Risk Level Modification Proceeding, a Defendant Is Entitled to All the Documents Reviewed by the Board
THE TRAFFIC STOP WAS PRETEXTUAL, OSTENSIBLY BASED ON A BURNED-OUT LICENSE-PLATE LIGHT; BUT THERE WAS SUPPORT IN THE RECORD FOR THE CANINE SNIFF BASED UPON A FOUNDED SUSPICION OF CRIMINAL ACTIVITY; THEREFORE THE MATTER WAS BEYOND REVIEW BY THE COURT OF APPEALS (CT APP).
WHERE THE RELEVANT OFFENSES WERE COMMITTED IN TWO COUNTIES, NO NEED FOR TWO SORA RISK ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS.
THE EVIDENCE OF DEPRAVED INDIFFERENCE TO HUMAN LIFE WAS SUFFICIENT AND EVIDENCE OF DEFENDANT’S BIPOLAR DISORDER WAS PROPERLY PRECLUDED BECAUSE TIMELY NOTICE OF THE DEFENSE WAS NOT PROVIDED TO THE PEOPLE (CT APP).
JUROR MISCONDUCT WARRANTED A NEW TRIAL IN THIS MURDER CASE (CT APP).
THE SO-CALLED TWO-HOUR RULE, REQUIRING THE REQUEST FOR A DWI BREATH TEST BE MADE AND THE REFUSAL WARNINGS BE GIVEN WITHIN TWO HOURS OF ARREST, DOES NOT APPLY TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE LICENSE REVOCATION HEARINGS HELD BY THE DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES (DMV); THEREFORE THE FACT THAT THE PETITIONER WAS ASKED TO TAKE THE BREATH TEST AND WAS GIVEN THE REFUSAL WARNINGS THREE HOURS AFTER ARREST DID NOT PRECLUDE THE DMV FROM CONSIDERING PETITIONER’S TEST REFUSAL (CT APP).