You are here: / Landlord-Tenant
,

CENTURY-OLD ELEVATOR MUST BE REPLACED, DESPITE THE COST AND DESPITE THE APPARENT FACT THAT ONLY ONE OF FOUR TENANTS USED THE ELEVATOR (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Tom, determined the ruling by the NYS Department of Housing and Community Renewal (DHCR) ruling requiring the landlord to provide elevator service was not irrational and must be upheld. The century-old elevator needed replacement at a cost of $150,000. Apparently the building has four tenants, and only one used the elevator. The opinion is comprehensive and cannot be fairly summarized here:

DHCR in its 2017 determination interpreted its own regulations to require that if elevator service was required under the Loft Law, it was also required under the Rent Stabilization Code upon the transition of the building to rent stabilization. This interpretation by DHCR of its own regulations should be upheld to the extent it is rational and not an arbitrary and capricious reliance on the facts of the case … . Certain facts are unclear regarding if and when the elevator broke down, or when the landlord acted on a decision to terminate operations. However … that would seem not to matter under these circumstances. Since elevator service had been provided while the building was regulated as an interim multiple dwelling, that service had to be continued without regard to the economic ramifications. In this sense, the cost to the landlord is not a factor that would displace the regulatory requirements and would not support setting aside the DHCR determination. * * *

… [W]e cannot conclude that DHCR was arbitrary and capricious in its evaluation of the relevant facts or irrational in concluding that in whatever manner elevator service was terminated, that action in the absence of DHCR’s approval was inconsistent with rent stabilization, and that elevator service, as a required service, had to be restored. Matter of Leonard St. Props. Group, Ltd. v New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 2019 NY Slip Op 08165, First Dept 11-12-19

 

,

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER LANDLORD KNEW OF THE DOG’S PRESENCE IN THE BUILDING AND WAS AWARE OF THE DOG’S VICIOUS PROPENSITIES, COMPLAINT AGAINST THE LANDLORD SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s dog-bite complaint against the landlord (New York City Housing Authority [NYCHA]) should not have been dismissed. Plaintiff alleged she was returning to her building after walking her dog when she was bitten by an unleashed pit bull owned by another resident of the building:

To hold a defendant landlord liable for injuries sustained in a dog bite incident, the plaintiff must establish the landlord’s knowledge of the dog’s presence, and its vicious propensities … . Knowledge of vicious propensities may be established by proof of prior acts of a similar kind of which the defendant had notice … .

Here, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to plaintiff as the nonmoving party, the record presents triable issues of fact regarding NYCHA’s notice of the dog’s presence and its vicious propensities. NYCHA’s manager at the subject building testified that NYCHA had no knowledge of prior dog bite incidents. However, NYCHA’s internal records show that a dog bite occurred at the building about three months prior to the attack on plaintiff. While that internal document does not identify the dog or its owner involved in the prior attack and NYCHA’s manager stated that NYCHA does not keep records of complaints involving vicious animals, plaintiff testified that she had seen third-party defendant with the dog on several prior occasions, and that the dog acted aggressively … . Almodovar v New York City Hous. Auth., 2019 NY Slip Op 08129, First Dept 11-12-19

 

,

THERE IS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF’S WORK CONSTITUTED ‘ALTERING’ WITHIN THE MEANING OF LABOR LAW 241 (6); ACTION AGAINST OUT-OF-POSSESSION LANDLORD PROPERLY DISMISSED, NO SUPERVISORY CONTROL OF THE WORK (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the defendant’s motion for summary judgment should not have been granted in this Labor Law 241 (6) action. But action against the out-of–possession landlord was properly dismissed because the landlord did not exercise and supervisory control over the work:

Plaintiff alleges that he was injured while installing a refrigeration condenser unit at premises owned by Boss and leased by Antillana. We find that the motion court improperly granted Antillana’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law § 241(6) claim. Plaintiff was engaged in an activity within the purview of Labor Law § 241(6). Plaintiff worked at the subject premises during the build-out installing three refrigeration system condensers, which weighed about 3000 pounds and had to be moved with a forklift. Three weeks after the store was opened, plaintiff was asked to install an additional condenser which weighed about 200 pounds. The president of Antillana acknowledged that there had been a renovation project underway at the premises before plaintiff’s accident.

We find that there is an issue of fact whether the subsequent installation of the condenser constituted an “alteration” of the premises, which falls within the ambit of “construction” work under Labor Law § 241(6) … .

We also find triable issues of material fact as to whether Antillana violated 12 NYCRR 23-1.25(d), (e)(1), (e)(3), and (f), relied upon by plaintiff to support his Labor Law § 241(6) claim. Rodriguez v Antillana & Metro Supermarket Corp., 2019 NY Slip Op 07714, First Dept 10-29-19

 

, ,

PURSUANT TO THE NYC ADMINISTRATIVE CODE, OUT-OF-POSSESSION LANDLORDS ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE REMOVAL OF ICE AND SNOW FROM THE ABUTTING CITY SIDEWALKS, NOTWITHSTANDING AN AGREEMENT MAKING THE TENANT RESPONSIBLE; THE OUT-POSSESSION-LANDLORDS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED BY THE APPELLATE DIVISION (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Rivera, reversing the Appellate Division, determined that the NYC  Administrative Code provision which requires the abutting landowners to maintain the city sidewalks applies to out-of-possession landlords, even where the tenant is responsible for maintaining the sidewalks under the lease:

Section 7-210 of the Administrative Code of the City of New York unambiguously imposes a nondelegable duty on certain real property owners to maintain City sidewalks abutting their land in a reasonably safe condition. Under this duty of care, a subject owner is liable for personal injury claims arising from the owner’s negligent failure to remove snow and ice from the sidewalk (id. § 7-210 [b]). The Code makes no exception for out-of-possession landowners and so we hold that the duty applies with full force notwithstanding an owner’s transfer of possession to a lessee or maintenance agreement with a nonowner. Thus, defendants are not entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law due solely to the owners’ out-of-possession status. Xiang Fu He v Troon Mgt., Inc., 2019 NY Slip Op 07643, CtApp 10-24-19

 

, ,

A REGULATORY AGREEMENT ENTERED INTO BY THE OUT-OF-POSSESSION LANDLORD IN CONNECTION WITH AN FHA MORTGAGE, WHICH REQUIRED THAT THE LANDLORD KEEP THE PROPERTY IN GOOD REPAIR, DID NOT CHANGE THE TERMS OF THE LEASE WHICH MADE THE TENANT RESPONSIBLE FOR REPAIRS; THE OUT-OF-POSSESSION LANDLORD THEREFORE IS NOT LIABLE FOR A SLIP AND FALL CAUSED BY A ROOF LEAK (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Stein, over a two-judge dissenting opinion, determined the owner of a nursing home, Hamilton Inc., as an out-of-possession landlord, was not liable to plaintiff who slipped and fell on the premises. It was alleged the pool of water which caused plaintiff to slip and fall was the result of a leak in the roof. The lease had made the tenant, Grand Manor, responsible for repairs. However a HUD regulatory agreement subsequently entered into by Hamilton Inc in connection with an FHA mortgage required that the property be kept in good repair by Hamilton. The Court of Appeals held that the regulatory agreement did change the terms of the lease:

… [T]he HUD regulatory agreement, as incorporated into the 1978 amendment to the lease, did not alter the contractual relationship between the Hamilton defendants and Grand Manor regarding control of the premises or replace Grand Manor’s contractual duty to perform maintenance and repairs at the facility. Although the terms of the HUD agreement were to supersede all other requirements in conflict therewith, the regulatory agreement did not conflict with, or absolve Grand Manor of, its responsibilities under the original lease. Indeed, as previously noted, the amendment continued all terms from the lease that did not conflict with the regulatory agreement. Given the absence of a conflict on the issue of Grand Manor’s duties to make repairs, the HUD agreement, as incorporated into the lease amendment, was not a covenant that could be said to displace Grand Manor’s duties or alter the relationship between landlord and tenant … .  * * *

… [T]he “exception to the general rule” set forth in Putnam is inapplicable to the regulatory agreement, and the general rule applies — that is, the “landlord is not liable for conditions upon the land after the transfer of possession” (38 NY2d at 617). Indeed, adoption of plaintiff’s proposed rule — that would require us to extend the exception set forth in Putnam to any agreement made by the lessor to make repairs — would mean that lessees could assume the sole obligation in a lease to maintain premises in good repair but avoid making repairs in reliance on a covenant later discovered between the land owner and a third party, a result not intended or supported by Putnam. Henry v Hamilton Equities, Inc., 2019 NY Slip Op 07642, CtApp 10-24-19

 

,

CLASS ACTION CLAIM BY TENANTS ALLEGING VARIOUS FORMS OF RENT OVERCHARGES PROPERLY SURVIVED A PRE-ANSWER MOTION TO DISMISS AND SHOULD PROCEED TO THE CERTIFICATION STAGE PURSUANT TO CPLR 902 (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Fahey, over a three-judge dissent, determined the pre-answer motion to dismiss a class action claim by tenants alleging various forms of rent overcharges was properly denied and the matter should move on for a ruling on whether the prerequisites for a class action under CPLR 902 are met:

… [T]here is an element of truth to defendants’ suggestion that the class claims — particularly those based on the alleged misrepresentation and inflation of the costs of IAIs [individual apartment improvements]— may require separate proof with respect to each plaintiff. Along those lines, defendants note that the operative complaint “alleges overcharges for inflated IAI increases of [various] amounts” — 136%, 97%, 82%, 104%, 113%, 33%, or 254% for various apartments — which they contend supports the idea that the alleged overcharges are separate wrongs to separate persons that do not form the basis for a class action … .

That leads to the friction point on this appeal: are we to look at the common basis for a damages claim or the degree of damage alleged? On the one hand, if, as defendants suggest, the differences in the specific means of harm is considered — that is, if at this stage the Court contemplates nuances of how those overcharges allegedly were accomplished — then plaintiffs may struggle to satisfy the factual component of CPLR 901 (a) (2). On the other hand, as plaintiffs note, to focus on potential idiosyncrasies within the class claims — distinctions that speak to damages, not to liability — at this juncture would potentially be to reward bad actors who execute a common method to damage in slightly different ways. * * *

Here the complaint addresses harm effectuated through a variety of approaches but within a common systematic plan … , and its class claims should not be dismissed at this juncture. Maddicks v Big City Props., LLC, 2019 NY Slip Op 07519, CtApp 10-22-19

 

,

OUT-OF-POSSESSION LANDLORD DEMONSTRATED IT WAS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR REPAIR OF THE DANGEROUS CONDITION; LANDLORD’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that defendant landlord’s motion for summary judgment in this slip and fall case should have been granted. Although there was a dangerous condition, defendant, as an out-of-possession landlord, was not responsible for its repair:

… [D]efendant submitted the lease between defendant and plaintiff’s employer, which provided that the lessee was responsible for all maintenance and repair of the premises except for “Major Improvements,” which the lease defined as “any major repair (repairs that are not of the nature of ordinary maintenance such as local patches, caulking, flashing)” including “replacement of the roof, replacement of load-bearing walls and foundations, [and] repairs to the concrete floor.” We conclude that maintenance of the allegedly bent or defective metal strip was not a “Major Improvement[]” under the lease … .

Further, the record established that defendant relinquished control of the premises. The fact that, under the lease, defendant reserved the right to enter the leased premises for purposes of inspection and performing “Major Improvements,” is ” insufficient to establish the requisite degree of control necessary for the imposition of liability with respect to an out-of-possession landlord’ ” … . “[A]n out-of-possession landlord who reserves that right may be held liable for injuries to a third party only where a specific statutory violation exists” … , and plaintiff failed to allege a specific statutory violation pertaining to the metal strip … . Addeo v Clarit Realty, Ltd., 2019 NY Slip Op 07163, Fourth Dept 10-4-19

 

,

LANDLORD DID NOT SUBMIT SUFFICIENT PROOF THAT THE LEASE REQUIRED THE TENANT TO REMOVE ICE AND SNOW, THEREFORE THE OUT-OF-POSSESSION LANDLORD’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that the out-of-possession landlord’s motion for summary judgment in this slip and fall case should not have been granted. The landlord did not submit a copy of the (expired) lease:

“Generally, when a tenant remains in possession [of the leased premises] after the expiration of a lease, pursuant to common law, there is implied a continua[tion] of the tenancy on the same terms and subject to the same covenants as those contained in the original instrument”‘… . By failing to submit a copy of the expired lease in support of their motion, the defendants failed to establish, prima facie, that they had no contractual obligation to remove snow and ice from the property … . Even assuming that neither the plaintiff nor the defendants have a copy of the expired lease in their possession, the defendants inexplicably failed to submit a copy of a lease entered into between them and other tenants of the property, notwithstanding the deposition testimony of the defendant … that he has rented the property since he purchased it in 1996, that he entered into a lease with each tenant, and that the leases specifically provided that it was the tenants’ responsibility to remove snow and ice. Miske v Selvaggi, 2019 NY Slip Op 06765, Second Dept 9-25-19

 

, , ,

COURT OF APPEALS 2009 RULING THAT LANDLORDS RECEIVING J-51 TAX BENEFITS CANNOT DEREGULATE NEW YORK CITY APARTMENTS APPLIES RETROACTIVELY IN THIS CLASS ACTION FOR RENT OVERCHARGES BROUGHT BY TENANTS; THE CLASS, HOWEVER, SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN EXPANDED AFTER THE ACTION WAS COMMENCED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Richter too comprehensive to fairly summarize here, modifying Supreme Court, determined that the class action by tenants in defendant’s large housing complex properly sought repayment of rent overcharges. The complaint alleged the landlord, under New York City rent control and stabilization law, and pursuant to a 2009 Court of Appeals case (Roberts v Tishman, 13 NY3d 270), could not deregulate apartments while receiving so-called “J-51” tax benefits. The landlord argued unsuccessfully that the Roberts decision did not apply retroactively. The First Department remanded the case for recalculation of the overcharges and further held that Supreme Court should not have expanded the class. With regard to the expansion of the class, the court wrote:

CPLR 902 provides that a class action “may be altered or amended before the decision on the merits.” However, that provision also states that “[an] action may be maintained as a class action only if the court finds that the prerequisites under [CPLR] 901 have been satisfied.” Those requirements are generally referred to as “numerosity, commonality, typicality, adequacy of representation and superiority” (City of New York v Maul, 14 NY3d 499, 508 [2010]). CPLR 902 further requires the court to consider a range of factors before certifying a class.

Here, the motion court improvidently exercised its discretion in expanding the class. The court’s order failed to analyze whether class action status was warranted based on the criteria set forth in CPLR 901 and CPLR 902. Conducting that analysis ourselves, we find that the redefined class represents such a fundamental change in the theory of plaintiffs’ case that expansion of the class would be improper. When the class was originally certified, plaintiffs maintained, and the court agreed, that its members were tenants who received deregulated leases while the complex was receiving J-51 benefits. The expanded class, however, would include tenants who never lived in the complex during defendant’s receipt of J-51 benefits, and who received regulated leases for their tenancies. Thus, the legal issues for this group of tenants are separate and distinct from those of the original class. Dugan v London Terrace Gardens, L.P., 2019 NY Slip Op 06578, First Dept 9-17-19

 

,

OUT-OF-POSSESSION LANDLORD NOT LIABLE FOR A SLIP AND FALL ON ICE ON THE RENTAL PROPERTY, SUPREME COURT REVERSED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant out-of-possession landlord did not have a contractual duty to remove ice and snow and did not have actual or constructive notice of the icy condition on the rental property in this slip and fall case:

“As a general rule, an out-of-possession landlord is not responsible for dangerous conditions existing upon leased premises after possession of the premises has been transferred to the tenant. Exceptions to this rule include situations where the landlord retains control of the premises, has specifically contracted to repair or maintain the property, has through a course of conduct assumed a responsibility to maintain or repair the property or has affirmatively created a dangerous condition thereon” … . “[W]hen a landowner and one in actual possession have committed their rights and obligations with regard to the property to a writing, [courts] look not only to the terms of the agreement but to the parties’ course of conduct . . . to determine whether the landowner in fact surrendered control over the property such that the landowner’s duty is extinguished as a matter of law” … . However, the fact that a landlord “retain[s] the right to visit the premises, or even to approve alterations, additions or improvements, is insufficient to establish the requisite degree of control necessary for the imposition of liability with respect to an out-of-possession landlord” … .

… “[W]ithout notice of a specific dangerous condition, an out-of-possession landlord cannot be faulted for failing to repair or otherwise rectify it” … . “Accordingly, the [ultimate] burden is on the plaintiff to prove actual or constructive notice and a reasonable opportunity to repair or remedy the dangerous condition” … . Rose v Kozak, 2019 NY Slip Op 06559, Third Dept 9-12-19

 

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