You are here: / Landlord-Tenant
, ,

THE LANDLORD DID NOT OWE A DUTY TO A TENANT TO PREVENT AN ASSAULT BY ANOTHER TENANT; THE LANDLORD’S DUTY IS NOT TRIGGERED UNLESS THE LANDLORD HAS THE AUTHORITY, ABILITY AND OPPORTUNITY TO CONTROL THE ACTIONS OF A TENANT-ASSAILANT; THE ABILITY TO EVICT DOES NOT CONSTITUTE THE REQUISITE AUTHORITY (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the landlord did not have a duty to prevent one tenant from attacking another:

… [The landlord] demonstrated prima facie that they were not liable for the third-party defendant’s alleged assault on plaintiff. A landlord has no duty to prevent one tenant from attacking another tenant unless it has the authority, ability, and opportunity to control the actions of the assailant …  Here, defendants had no authority or opportunity to remove Vasquez from the premises prior to the assault. Defendants’ employee testified that defendants were unaware of prior complaints of [the tenant] engaging in violence, and plaintiff acknowledged that before the attack she never complained about [the tenant] being violent. Moreover, the assault upon the plaintiff was not reasonably foreseeable … .

Plaintiff failed to raise an issue of fact in opposition. Defendants’ ability to evict [the tenant] did not constitute the requisite authority, ability, and opportunity to control him … . Plaintiff failed to identify any prior complaints about [the tenant] being violent or making explicit threats of violence. Plaintiff’s generalized complaints about unsupervised children on the complex and about other children engaging in bullying were not sufficient to put defendants on notice that [the tenant] might be violent … . Rodriguez v Madison Sec. Group, Inc., 2026 NY Slip Op 01869, First Dept 3-26-26

Practice Point: Consult this decision for insight into the nature of a landlord’s duty to prevent an assault by one tenant against another.

 

,

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.

 

, ,

THE EXECUTIVE LAW WHICH MAKES A LANDLORD’S REFUSAL TO ACCEPT TENANTS WHO RECEIVE SECTION 8 VOUCHERS AN UNLAWFUL DISCRIMINATORY PRACTICE IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL BECAUSE, AS A RESULT OF ACCEPTING SECTION 8 FUNDS, LANDLORDS MUST SUBMIT TO UNREASONABLE SEARCHES OF APARTMENTS AND RECORDS (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Ceresia, determined Executive Law section 296(5)(a)(1) is unconstitutional. The statute makes a landlord’s refusal to rent to tenants who receive Section 8 housing vouchers an unlawful discriminatory practice. The landlords argued “the source-of-income discrimination law is unconstitutional on its face because it, in effect, requires landlords to take part in the Section 8 program, which in turn obligates them to consent to warrantless searches of their premises and records in violation of the Fourth Amendment:”

The particulars of respondents’ [landlords’] constitutional claim are as follows. By prohibiting discrimination based upon source of income, respondents argue, the Legislature has required landlords to accept Section 8 vouchers and, as a condition of participating in that program, agree to allow searches of their properties and records. More specifically, under the governing federal statutes and regulations, a potential Section 8 apartment must meet certain housing quality standards … , and in order to determine whether these standards are met, the local PHA [public housing agency] administering the program must perform an inspection of the apartment, the equipment that services the apartment and the common areas of the building before the apartment is occupied and again not less than biennially during the term of the tenancy … . Further, for purposes of assessing whether the rent charged by the landlord is reasonable, the landlord must make available to the PHA its records concerning the apartment in question as well as the amounts of rent it charges for other units, both in the building in question and in other buildings … . The landlord must sign a standard housing assistance payment (hereinafter HAP) contract, in which it agrees to provide “full and free access” to the apartment, the premises and all relevant accounts and records. Respondents contend that these inspection mandates force them to surrender the Fourth Amendment’s protections against governmental searches of private property in the absence of either voluntary consent or a warrant, neither of which are provided for here. * * *

An inspection scheme must assure that the discretion of the inspecting officers is “carefully limited in time, place, and scope” … , and we find that the Section 8 inspection regime lacks these safeguards. With respect to timing, although the regulations set benchmarks for when inspections should be performed at the outset of the tenancy and then at least once every two years thereafter there is no further guidance as to the frequency of the inspections and, indeed, they must be done whenever the PHA receives a complaint … . As for the place and scope of a search, while the regulations offer examples of interior spaces that may be searched and explain the purposes of the search, there are no limitations placed on what may be inspected. When combined with the HAP contract, which requires landlords to allow “full and free access to the contract unit and the premises, and to all accounts and other records of the owner that are relevant to the HAP contract,” the place and scope of a permissible search are exceedingly broad. Under these circumstances, the inspection scheme does not provide adequate safeguards … . Matter of People of the State of N.Y. v Commons West, LLC, 2026 NY Slip Op 01253, Third Dept 3-5-26

 

,

PURSUANT TO THE HOUSING STABILITY AND TENANT PROTECTION ACT (HSTPA) AND NEW YORK CITY’S RENT STABILIZATION LAW (RSL), THE TENANT WAS ENTITLED TO BUT WAS NEVER OFFERED A RENEWAL LEASE UNDER THE TERMS OF THE PRIOR LEASE SIGNED BY HIS GRANDMOTHER; THE LANDLORD’S HOLDOVER AND EVICTION PETITION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Appellate Term, determined the landlord’s holdover and eviction petition should have been dismissed. The tenant was entitled to a renewal lease pursuant to the Rent Stabilization Law and the Housing Stability and Tenant Protection Act (HSTPA). The landlord never provided a renewal lease:

The Housing Stability and Tenant Protection Act (HSTPA) was enacted on June 14, 2019 and became effective immediately … . The HSTPA restricts a landlord’s right to withdraw a previously offered preferential rent, even if properly preserved in the lease. Specifically, Rent Stabilization Law § 26-511(c)(14) provides that for “any tenant who . . . is or was entitled to receive a renewal or vacancy lease” as of the date of the HSTPA’s enactment, “the amount of rent for such housing accommodation that may be charged and paid shall be no more than the rent charged to and paid by the tenant prior to that renewal, as adjusted by the most recent applicable guidelines increases and any other increases authorized by law.” … . * * *

Where a landlord fails to offer a renewal lease, the rights under the expiring lease continue to apply (Rent Stabilization Code (9 NYCRR) § 2523.5[d] [“(T)he failure to offer a renewal lease pursuant to this section shall not deprive the tenant of any protections or rights provided by the RSL and this Code and the tenant shall continue to have the same rights as if the expiring lease were still in effect”]). Where a renewal lease is not made in a timely fashion, “courts have repeatedly upheld . . . allowing the renewal lease increase to take effect only prospectively” … .

… [T]he tenant’s succession rights under the prior lease signed by the tenant’s grandmother continued to apply until he was offered a renewal lease on November 7, 2019 after the passage of the HSTPA. As the HSTPA applies to tenant’s succession rights, his cross-motion dismissing the petition should have been granted on the basis that he was entitled to a lease at the amount of rent paid under the prior lease signed by his grandmother (Rent Stabilization Law § 26-511[c][14]). Matter of West Side Marquis LLC v Maldonado, 2026 NY Slip Op 01023, First Dept 2-24-26

Practice Point: Consult this decision for insight into the application of the Housing Stability and Tenant Protection Act (HSTPA) and NYC’s Rent Stabilization Law (RBL).

 

, , , ,

THE FIRST DEPARTMENT RULED THAT PLAINTIFF-TENANTS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE, AS A MATTER OF LAW, THAT DEFENDANTS ENGAGED IN A FRAUDULENT SCHEME TO DEREGULATE APARTMENTS WHILE RECEIVING J51 TAX BENEFITS; THE COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED (CT APP).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Kennedy, over a comprehensive, two-justice dissenting opinion, determined plaintiff-tenants did not demonstrate, as a matter of law, a fraudulent scheme on the part of the defendants re: deregulation of apartments while receiving J51 tax benefits. The Court of Appeal reversed and remitted:

From the First Department decision:

The issues presented on this appeal are (1) what is the appropriate base date rent for calculating damages and (2) whether the record before us sets forth evidence of a fraudulent scheme to deregulate the subject apartments to permit use of the default formula pursuant to Rent Stabilization Code (RSC) (9 NYCRR) § 2526.1(g). * * *

… [W]e conclude that the record before us did not establish evidence of a fraudulent scheme to deregulate the subject apartments as a matter of law, and that it was improper to utilize the default formula to calculate damages … . Aras v B-U Realty Corp., 2023 NY Slip Op 04917, First Dept 10-3-23

Reversed by the Court of Appeals: Aras v B-U Realty Corp., 2026 NY Slip Op 00637. CtApp 2-11-26

 

, , , ,

THE FOUR-MONTH STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR BRINGING AN ARTICLE 78 PETITION CHALLENGING TERMINATION OF SECTION 8 RENT-SUBSIDY BENEFITS STARTS WHEN THE TENANT BECOMES AWARE OF THE TERMINATION; THE PETITION WAS TIME-BARRED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined petitioner became aware that the Section 8 rent subsidy benefits were terminated in December 2019 triggering the four-month statute of limitations for challenging the termination. Therefore petitioner’s 2024 article 78 petition was time-barred:

The four-month statute of limitations applies to proceedings terminating Section 8 benefits, and it begins to run upon tenant’s receipt of the T3 letter advising the tenant of that termination (see CPLR 217[1] …). The statute of limitations may be triggered in the absence of actual notice where, as here, the party knew or should have known about the determination … . The record shows petitioner had actual notice in December 2019, so the statutory limitation period to challenge termination of her subsidy started no later than December 31, 2019, and expired on April 30, 2020, well before she commenced the instant proceeding. Matter of Cruz v New York City Hous. Auth. (NYCHA), 2026 NY Slip Op 00420, First Dept 1-29-26

Practice Point: The statute of limitations for bringing an article 78 petition challenging the termination of section 8 rent-subsidy benefits starts when the tenant receives the T3 letter or when the tenant knew or should have known about the termination.

 

, ,

IN THIS HOTEL-ROOM SLIP AND FALL CASE, THE OUT-OF-POSSESSION LANDLORD WAS NOT OBLIGATED BY CONTRACT OR COURSE OF CONDUCT TO REPAIR DANGEROUS CONDITIONS AND THE LESSEE OF THE HOTEL DEMONSTRATED IT DID NOT HAVE CONSTRUCTIVE OR ACTUAL NOTICE OF THE WATER ON THE BATHROOM FLOOR IN PLAINTIFF’S ROOM; DEFENDANTS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the out-of-possession landlord and the lessee of the hotel where plaintiff slipped and fell on water on the bathroom floor were entitled to summary judgment. The out-of-possession landlord was not bound by contract or course of conduct to repair a dangerous condition. The lessee demonstrated it had no constructive or actual notice of the condition:

“‘An out-of-possession landlord is not liable for injuries that occur on its premises unless the landlord has retained control over the premises and has a duty imposed by statute or assumed by contract or a course of conduct'” … . “[A] landowner who has transferred possession and control is generally not liable for injuries caused by dangerous conditions on the property” … . * * *

Here, the moving defendants established, prima facie, that New Ram [the lessee] did not create or have constructive notice of the alleged dangerous condition …. [T]he moving defendants submitted … plaintiff’s deposition transcript indicating that the plaintiff did not see any water on the bathroom floor prior to his fall. The plaintiff testified that he showered in the bathroom at approximately 6:00 p.m., after which there was no water on the bathroom floor. Thereafter, he went to sleep and awoke at approximately 1:00 a.m. to use the bathroom, where he fell and then first noticed the leak. The plaintiff also testified that he never noticed or reported any leaks or water on the bathroom floor prior to this incident and that he never before complained about water on the bathroom floor or leaks … .

The moving defendants also submitted a transcript of the deposition testimony of [the lessee’s] former general manager, who testified that there had never before been reports of a water leak from one room to another, nor had there been reports of any other slip and falls in the bathrooms of the hotel. She further stated that any such report would have been recorded in a log, and no such report existed. Additionally, another hotel worker averred in an affidavit that he was not aware of any incidents in the hotel where water leaked from one room to another. Gibbs v New Ram Realty, LLC, 2026 NY Slip Op 00349, Second Dept 1-28-26

Practice Point: Here the out-of-possession landlord was not obligated to repair dangerous conditions by contract or course of conduct and the lessee of the property demonstrated a lack of constructive and actual notice of the condition which allegedly caused plaintiff’s slip and fall. The property defendants were entitled to summary judgment.

 

, ,

DEFENDANT LANDLORD’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION IN THIS SIDEWALK SLIP AND FALL CASE RAISED QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER DEFENDANT HAD TRANSFERRED RESPONSIBILITY FOR SNOW AND ICE REMOVAL IN THE AREA OF THE FALL TO PLAINTIFF TENANT AND WHETHER DEFENDANT HAD ACTUAL KNOWLEDGE OF THE RECURRING COLLECTION OF WATER AND ICE IN THE AREA OF THE FALL (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the evidence submitted by defendant landlord in this icy-sidewalk slip and fall case failed to eliminate questions of fact about whether defendant had completely relinquished to the plaintiff responsibility for snow and ice removal in the area of the fall and whether defendant had actual knowledge of the depression in the sidewalk and the formation of ice in the area of the fall:

Here, the evidence submitted by the defendant demonstrated that the defendant lived at the property where the plaintiff’s accident occurred. Additionally, at his deposition, the defendant testified that the garbage cans for both sides of the property, which he maintained, were located on the plaintiff’s side of the property and that he approached the garbage cans several times per week both to place trash in the garbage cans and to bring the garbage cans to the street for collection. Moreover, photographs submitted by the defendant depicting the area where the plaintiff fell demonstrated that the garbage cans were stored within a few feet of that area. Although the lease stated that the plaintiff was responsible for cleaning any accumulated snow from the entryway outside his private entrance, the lease also stated that the defendant was required to provide the plaintiff with a shovel and salt to complete this task. Finally, although the plaintiff testified at his deposition that he took care of snow removal for the area where he fell, his son testified at his deposition that in December 2018, approximately one month before the plaintiff’s accident, the defendant had, on a few occasions, placed salt on ice in that area.

… Although the defendant denied knowing about the condition or having any conversations with the plaintiff about this condition, at his deposition, the plaintiff testified that prior to the accident, he had told the defendant “[f]our to five times” about the allegedly defective section of the side yard walkway, including that ice and snow would accumulate there in the winter. Moreover, several of the photographs submitted by the defendant depicted an accumulation of ice and snow in the allegedly defective area where the plaintiff fell. Yongxi Li v Pei Xing Huang, 2025 NY Slip Op 07432, Second Dept 12-31-25

Practice Point: Consult this slip-and-fall decision for succinct explanations of the law concerning the responsibility for snow and ice removal as between a resident landlord and a tenant, as well as a landlord’s actual knowledge of a recurring dangerous condition.

 

, ,

THE NYC DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING PRESERVATON AND DEVELOPMENT HAD A RATIONAL BASIS FOR FINDING THAT PETITIONER DID NOT USE HIS BROTHER’S APARTMENT AS HIS PRIMARY RESIDENCE FOR ONE YEAR PRIOR TO HIS BROTHER’S DEATH; THEREFORE PETITIONER WAS NOT ENTITLED TO SUCCESSION RIGHTS TO THE MITCHELL-LAMA APARTMENT; THERE WAS AN EXTENSIVE TWO-JUDGE DISSENT (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Cannataro, over an extensive two-judge dissent, determined the NYC Department of Housing Preservation and Development had a rational basis for finding that petitioner did not use his brother’s apartment as his primary residence for one year prior to his brother’s death and therefore was not entitled to succession rights to the Mitchell-Lama apartment:

The administrative hearing officer found that petitioner failed to establish co-residency during the relevant one-year period. Initially, the hearing officer found petitioner’s claim that the subject apartment had been his primary residence since August 2018 was contradicted by documents addressed to him at a North Miami, Florida address during that timeframe—specifically, a February 2019 letter from the Social Security Administration and bank statements from petitioner’s Wells Fargo account for the period from October 2018 through January 2019. In addition, the hearing officer considered undated documents, documents dated outside of the one-year period and documents that did not include an address but determined such documents did not prove the requisite co-residency. The hearing officer likewise concluded that the statements from 2018 through 2020 for tenant’s bank account, listing petitioner as power of attorney, were not “credible, sufficient and reliable proof” that petitioner resided in the apartment as his primary residence. The hearing officer observed that the only documents that reflected petitioner’s address as the subject apartment during the required co-residency period were the April and May 2019 letters regarding SNAP benefits. Further, the hearing officer noted that petitioner had maintained his connection to Florida, as he had kept his Florida driver’s license throughout the co-residency period [FN2]. Based on these findings, the hearing officer denied the appeal, concluding that petitioner failed to meet the eligibility requirements. The opinion made no mention of petitioner’s failure to submit tax returns. Matter of Mantilla v New York City Dept. of Hous. Preserv. & Dev., 2025 NY Slip Op 07079, CtApp 12-18-25

 

, , ,

IN THIS EJECTMENT ACTION, DEFENDANT-TENANT’S “FAILURE TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION,” “WAIVER,” “CONSTRUCTIVE EVICTION,” “BREACH OF COVENANT OF QUIET ENJOYMENT,” “IMPROPER NOTICE OF DEFAULT,” AND “TRESPASS” AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED; CRITERIA EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined several affirmative defenses in this ejectment action should not have been dismissed. Plaintiff landlord sought to eject defendant tenant from a parking lot for nonpayment of rent. Defendant alleged, and plaintiff acknowledged, plaintiff had rented certain parking spaces to a third party. The Second Department held: (1) no motion lies to dismiss a “failure to state a cause of action” defense because plaintiff cannot test the sufficiency of its own claim; (2) the “waiver” defense should not have been dismissed despite the “nonwaiver” provision in the lease; (3) the constructive eviction and breach of covenant of quiet enjoyment defenses were supported by plaintiff’s renting spaces to a third party; (4) the ‘improper notice of default” defense was supported by the plaintiff’s failure to provide the notice called for by the lease; and (5) the “trespass” defense was supported by the rental of spaces to a third party:

CPLR 3211(b) provides that “[a] party may move for judgment dismissing one or more defenses, on the ground that a defense is not stated or has no merit.” “When moving to dismiss, the plaintiff bears the burden of demonstrating that the affirmative defenses ‘are without merit as a matter of law because they either do not apply under the factual circumstances of [the] case, or fail to state a defense'” … . “‘On a motion pursuant to CPLR 3211(b), the court should apply the same standard it applies to a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7), and the factual assertions of the defense will be accepted as true'” … . “‘Moreover, if there is any doubt as to the availability of a defense, it should not be dismissed'” … . Diversified Bldg. Co., LLC v Nader Enters., LLC, 2025 NY Slip Op 06047, Second Dept 11-5-25

Practice Point: Consult this decision for insight into the criteria for dismissal of an affirmative defense and the elements of “waiver,” “constructive eviction,” “breach of covenant of quiet enjoyment,” “Improper notice of default,” and “trespass” affirmative defenses as alleged by defendant-tenant in this ejectment action brough by plaintiff-landlord.

 

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