You are here: / Landlord-Tenant
,

HOUSING AUTHORITY VIOLATED ITS OWN RULES AND EFFECTIVELY PREVENTED PETITIONER FROM MEETING THE PREREQUISITES FOR A HEARING ON HER REMAINING FAMILY MEMBER GRIEVANCE.

The First Department, over an extensive dissent, determined the New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA) effectively made it impossible for the petitioner to meet the prerequisites for a hearing (paying use and occupancy arrears) on her “remaining family member” grievance. The case was therefore remitted for a hearing on the grievance:

The NYCHA Management Manual requires that a remaining family member grievant must remain current in use and occupancy to pursue the grievance (NYCHA Management Manual, ch 1, subd XII[D][2][b]). This Court has upheld that requirement (Matter of Garcia v Franco, 248 AD2d 263, 265 [1st Dept 1998], lv denied 92 NY2d 813 [1998]). However, in this case, NYCHA’s application of that rule to petitioner, and its resulting dismissal of her remaining family member grievance, was arbitrary and capricious. NYCHA failed and refused to recalculate use and occupancy based on petitioner’s income, notwithstanding that the NYCHA Management Manual requires that it do so, during the pendency of a remaining family member grievance, in order for it to determine use and occupancy as the lower of the tenant of record’s rent or the rent rate based on the income of the remaining occupant (Manual, at ch 1, subd XII[D][2][b])[FN1]. NYCHA also failed and refused to provide petitioner with information and documents necessary for her to apply for funds to pay the arrears in use and occupancy. As a result, it was impossible for petitioner to meet the condition precedent to a hearing. Matter of Figueroa v New York City Hous. Auth., 2016 NY Slip Op 05619, 1st Dept 7-21-16

MUNICIPAL LAW (HOUSING AUTHORITY VIOLATED ITS OWN RULES AND EFFECTIVELY PREVENTED PETITIONER FROM MEETING THE PREREQUISITES FOR A HEARING ON HER REMAINING FAMILY MEMBER GRIEVANCE)/LANDLORD-TENANT (NEW YORK CITY HOUSING AUTHORITY, HOUSING AUTHORITY VIOLATED ITS OWN RULES AND EFFECTIVELY PREVENTED PETITIONER FROM MEETING THE PREREQUISITES FOR A HEARING ON HER REMAINING FAMILY MEMBER GRIEVANCE)/NEW YORK CITY HOUSING AUTHORITY (HOUSING AUTHORITY VIOLATED ITS OWN RULES AND EFFECTIVELY PREVENTED PETITIONER FROM MEETING THE PREREQUISITES FOR A HEARING ON HER REMAINING FAMILY MEMBER GRIEVANCE)

,

OUT-OF-POSSESSION LANDLORD DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT DID NOT CREATE THE DANGEROUS CONDITION, SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY DENIED.

The Second Department determined defendant out-of-possession landlord did not demonstrate it did not cause the alleged radiator-defect which injured plaintiff. Therefore the landlord's motion for summary judgment was properly denied:

“[A]n out-of-possession landowner is generally not responsible for injuries that occur on its premises unless the landowner has retained control over the premises and is contractually or statutorily obligated to repair or maintain the premises or has assumed a duty to repair or maintain the premises by virtue of a course of conduct” … . However, ” liability may attach to an out-of-possession owner who has affirmatively created a dangerous condition or defect'” … .

Here, the defendant failed to establish its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. Although the defendant demonstrated that it did not owe a duty to provide the plaintiff with a radiator cover …, the defendant failed to establish that it did not cause the radiator to become and remain in a defective, broken, and overheated condition. Gowen v Gabrielle Realty Holdings, LLC, 2016 NY Slip Op 04695, 2nd Dept 6-15-16

NEGLIGENCE (OUT-OF-POSSESSION LANDLORD DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT DID NOT CREATE THE DANGEROUS CONDITION, SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY DENIED)/LANDLORD-TENANT (OUT-OF-POSSESSION LANDLORD DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT DID NOT CREATE THE DANGEROUS CONDITION, SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY DENIED)/OUT-OF-POSSESSION LANDLORD (OUT-OF-POSSESSION LANDLORD DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT DID NOT CREATE THE DANGEROUS CONDITION, SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY DENIED)

,

OUT-OF-POSSESSION LANDLORD NOT LIABLE FOR FALL ON A WET FLOOR IN THE LEASED PREMISES.

The Second Department determined defendant out-of-possession landlord was entitled to summary judgment in this slip and fall case. Plaintiff, in a bar on leased premises, fell on a bathroom floor alleged to have been wet with cleaning solution and water:

“An out-of-possession landlord can be held liable for injuries that occur on its premises only if the landlord has retained control over the premises and if the landlord is contractually or statutorily obligated to repair or maintain the premises or has assumed a duty to repair or maintain the premises by virtue of a course of conduct” … . Here, [the landlord] established, prima facie, that he was an out-of-possession landlord with no contractual obligation to maintain the premises, and that he neither endeavored to perform such maintenance nor owed any duty to the plaintiff by virtue of any statute upon which the plaintiff relies … . Mendoza v Manila Bar & Rest. Corp., 2016 NY Slip Op 04698, 2nd Dept 6-15-16

 

NEGLIGENCE (OUT-OF-POSSESSION LANDLORD NOT LIABLE FOR FALL ON A WET FLOOR IN THE LEASED PREMISES)/LANDLORD-TENANT (OUT-OF-POSSESSION LANDLORD NOT LIABLE FOR FALL ON A WET FLOOR IN THE LEASED PREMISES)/OUT-OF-POSSESSION LANDLORD (OUT-OF-POSSESSION LANDLORD NOT LIABLE FOR FALL ON A WET FLOOR IN THE LEASED PREMISES)

,

QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER TENANT ENTITLED TO RESCIND LEASE BECAUSE CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY PROHIBITED TENANT’S USE OF THE PROPERTY FOR COMMERCIAL PURPOSES.

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Tom, reversing Supreme Court, determined questions of fact precluded the granting of landlord's cross-motion for summary judgment dismissing plaintiff-tenant's rescission action (alleging impossibility, fraud, misrepresentation and frustration of purpose). By the terms of the lease the tenant was prohibited from any use of the premises which violated the certificate of occupancy (CO). The lease required tenant to use the premises solely for a commercial purpose (executive recruiting firm). However the CO required that the premises be used solely as residential property. The First Department distinguished the line of cases which enforced leases where the only objection to the lease was a problem with the CO:

… [T]here are issues of fact as to whether plaintiff's cause of action for rescission can be proved. While the purpose of the lease was for the space to be used as an office and plaintiff is in fact prohibited from any other use, the lease also prohibits plaintiff from using the premises in violation of the CO, and the CO itself prohibits commercial use of the space. Therefore, plaintiff properly raises the excuse of impossibility of performance as its ability to perform under the lease was destroyed by law … . Absent defendants' willingness to alter the CO it was impossible for plaintiff to perform its obligations under the lease, and the evidence raises an issue of fact as to whether defendants were willing to cooperate in this regard. * * *

… [T]here is an issue of fact as to whether the lease should be terminated on the ground of frustration of purpose. In order to invoke this defense, “the frustrated purpose must be so completely the basis of the contract that, as both parties understood, without it, the transaction would have made little sense”… . Jack Kelly Partners LLC v Zegelstein, 2016 NY Slip Op 03820, 1st Dept 5-12-16

LANDLORD-TENANT (QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER TENANT ENTITLED TO RESCIND LEASE BECAUSE CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY PROHIBITED USE OF THE PROPERTY FOR COMMERCIAL PURPOSES)/CONTRACT LAW (LEASES, QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER TENANT ENTITLED TO RESCIND LEASE BECAUSE CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY PROHIBITED USE OF THE PROPERTY FOR COMMERCIAL PURPOSES)/RESCISSION (LEASES, QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER TENANT ENTITLED TO RESCIND LEASE BECAUSE CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY PROHIBITED USE OF THE PROPERTY FOR COMMERCIAL PURPOSES)

, ,

LANDOWNERS DID NOT HAVE A DUTY TO PROVIDE SECURITY IN PUBLIC VESTIBULE OF THEIR BUILDING WHERE PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT WAS SHOT (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the landowner did not have a duty to provide minimal security precautions in the public vestibule of their building in this third party assault case, despite a history of shooting on the premises:

Defendant established entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by showing that it owed no duty to protect plaintiff Charles Wong’s decedent, Malachi Wong, and his brother, plaintiff Timothy Wong, from the shootings that occurred in the public vestibule of their building. A landowner’s duty to take minimal security precautions does not extend to exterior public areas, including walkways and vestibules … . Contrary to the motion court’s finding, plaintiffs’ evidence failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the shootings were foreseeable. The article in the Co-op City Times, expressing the need for a greater police presence in Co-op City, and defendant’s public safety records, indicating 24 reports of gunshots fired on the premises, were insufficient, since they did not indicate that any of the reported shootings occurred in the vicinity of plaintiffs’ building … . The location of where the shots were fired is relevant, in light of the fact that Co-op City spans two-square miles and is comprised of approximately 200 residential buildings … .

The affidavit of plaintiffs’ security expert in which he states that defendant’s reduction of its security officers at midnight proximately caused decedent’s and Timothy Wong’s injuries is insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether defendant breached its duty to provide minimal precautions against the foreseeable criminal acts of third parties … . Furthermore, defendant did not proximately cause the injuries, since the record shows that the assailant specifically targeted Malachi and Timothy … . Wong v Riverbay Corp. 2016 NY Slip Op 03585 [139 AD3d 440], First Dept 5-5-16

 

,

PROPERTY OWNER (LANDLORD) LIABLE FOR PAYMENT FOR ELECTRICAL WORK REQUIRED BY THE LEASE AND CONTRACTED FOR BY THE LESSEE.

The Fourth Department determined the owner of property leased to the party who hired an electrical contractor was liable for payment of the electrical contractor's mechanic's lien. As part of the lease agreement, the owner/landlord required the lessee (Peaches) to contract for the electrical work. The Fourth Department noted that all the other departments have held the owner is not liable in this context unless the owner directly contracted for the work. The Fourth Department concluded, however, that a Court of Appeals case controlled:

Lien Law § 3 provides in relevant part that a “contractor . . . who performs labor or furnishes materials for the improvement of real property with the consent or at the request of the owner thereof . . . shall have a lien . . . upon the real property improved.” For purposes of this provision, a “requirement in a contract between . . . landlord and tenant, that the . . . tenant shall make certain improvements on the premises is a sufficient consent of the owner to charge his property with claims which accrue in making those improvements” (Jones v Menke, 168 NY 61, 64; see De Klyn v Gould, 165 NY 282, 287). The Court of Appeals subsequently reaffirmed Jones's broad interpretation of section 3 in McNulty Bros. v Offerman (221 NY 98), holding that, as long as “the liens have been confined to work called for by the lease[,] . . . the landlords' estate may be charged to the same extent as if the owners of that estate had ordered the work themselves. In substance, they have made the lessee their agent for that purpose” (id. at 106). Jones and McNulty Bros. have not been overturned or disavowed. Ferrara v Peaches Café LLC, 2016 NY Slip Op 03286, 4th Dept 4-29-16


, ,

VERTICAL LADDER FIRE ESCAPE, THROUGH WHICH PLAINTIFF FELL AND WAS RENDERED PARAPLEGIC, VIOLATED MULTIPLE DWELLINGS LAW 53.

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Tom, determined the owner of an apartment building was in violation of Multiple Dwelling Law 53, which prohibited vertical ladder fire escapes. Plaintiff fell through the hole in the vertical ladder fire escape when she was visiting her friend’s apartment. Plaintiff was rendered paraplegic and sued the building owner:

… [I]n 1948, the Legislature amended the section to add language to subsection nine of Multiple Dwelling Law § 53 (see Laws of New York, 1948, ch 850). The law was entitled “An Act to amend the multiple dwelling law, in relation to existing fire escapes,” and subsection nine, as amended, expressly states that “[a] wire, chain cable, vertical ladder or rope fire-escape is an unlawful means of egress. Every such fire-escape, if required as a means of egress, shall be removed and replaced by a system of fire-escapes constructed and arranged as provided in this section” (Multiple Dwelling Law § 53[9]).

A plain reading of the clear and unambiguous language of subsection nine leads to the conclusion that all vertical ladders on multiple dwellings, regardless of when the fire escape was constructed, are unlawful and must be removed and replaced by a fire escape that complies with the provisions of Multiple Dwelling Law § 53. Notably, the section includes no exceptions of any kind … . Klupchak v First E. Vil. Assoc., 2016 NY Slip Op 03276, 1st Dept 4-28-16

 

, ,

OUT-OF-POSSESSION LANDLORD CAN BE LIABLE UNDER LABOR LAW 240 AND 241.

The First Department noted that an out-of-possession landlord can be held liable for Labor Law 240 and 241 claims:

… [T]he court improperly dismissed the Labor Law §§ 240 and 241 claims on the ground that the City was an out-of-possession landlord, since the statutes impose liability on property owners without regard to the owner's degree of supervision or control over the premises … . Siguencia v City of New York, 2016 NY Slip Op 03108,  1st Dept 4-26-16


,

NEW YORK CITY HOUSING AUTHORITY ACTED ARBITRARILY AND CAPRICIOUSLY WHEN IT DENIED PETITIONER SUCCESSION RIGHTS TO HIS MOTHER’S APARTMENT.

The First Department, over a two-justice dissent, determined the New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA) acted arbitrarily and capriciously when it denied petitioner succession rights to his mother's apartment. Petitioner had moved in with his mother to care for her when she became unable to care for herself. The NYCHA knew petitioner had moved in to care for his mother but repeatedly denied petitioner's applications to become an occupant of his mother's apartment on “overcrowding” grounds:

Respondent's determination denying petitioner succession rights to his mother's apartment was arbitrary and capricious. Petitioner's mother submitted multiple applications to add petitioner to the lease as required by 24 CFR 966.4(a)(1)(v). The first application was denied on the ground that adding petitioner to the household “will create overcrowding”; the second, not on that basis but allegedly because petitioner signed the application on his disabled mother's behalf. NYCHA never considered evidence of petitioner's mother's disability in denying the applications.

The ground proffered for the denial, i.e., that adding petitioner to the household would result in overcrowding, creates an unacceptable Catch-22 — a request to add an additional family member will almost always result in overcrowding unless NYCHA fails simultaneously to consider transferring the applicant to a larger apartment. NYCHA guidelines provide that an “overcrowded” apartment should not result in a summary denial of the RFM's (remaining family member's) claims; rather, the housing manager should inform the new tenant that he may submit a request to transfer to a new apartment. Matter of Aponte v Olatoye, 2016 NY Slip Op 02708, 1st Dept 4-7-16


, , ,

LANDLORD OWED NO STATUTORY DUTY TO ABATE LEAD IN AN APARTMENT WHERE THE CHILD SPENT 50 HOURS PER WEEK IN THE CARE OF HER GRANDMOTHER, LAW REQUIRING LEAD PAINT ABATEMENT APPLIES ONLY TO APARTMENTS WHERE A CHILD RESIDES.

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Pigott, over a dissenting opinion by Judge Fahey, determined a New York City Local Law, which imposed a duty on the landlord to abate lead paint in an apartment where a child under the age of six “resides,” did not apply to an apartment where a child was cared for 50 hours per week. Plaintiff’s child was cared for during the day by grandmother in grandmother’s apartment. The child developed an elevated lead level. In order to sue the landlord, the landlord must have owed a statutory duty to the child to abate the lead in grandmother’s apartment. The majority held that the term “reside” in the Local Law did not encompass the child’s presence in the apartment 50 hours a week. Therefore the landlord owed no duty to the child:

Dictionaries from the relevant time period define “reside” as “to dwell permanently or continuously: occupy a place as one’s legal domicile” (Merriam Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary 1003 [9th ed 1986]) and “to have a settled abode for a time; have one’s residence or domicile” (Webster’s Third New International Dictionary 1931 [1981]). According to Webster’s Third, “reside” is the “preferred term for expressing the idea that a person keeps or returns to a particular dwelling place as his fixed, settled, or legal abode” … . Black’s Law Dictionary notes that “residence” “is made up of fact and intention, the fact of abode and the intention of remaining, and is a combination of acts and intention. Residence implies something more than mere physical presence and something less than domicile” (Black’s Law Dictionary 1176 [5th ed 1979]). * * *

Nothing in the legislative history of Local Law 1 suggests that the City Council meant anything other than this understanding of the term “reside.” We presume the City was familiar with the common meaning and usage of the words it used as well as existing decisional law …, which, in this case, understood residence as something more than physical presence but something less than domicile — living in a particular place with the intent to retain it as a residence … . Had the City intended to expand the meaning of the word “reside” to include children who do not actually live in an apartment but spend significant amounts of time there, it could have used words to that effect … . Yaniveth R. v LTD Realty Co., 2016 NY Slip Op 02550, CtApp 4-5-16

NEGLIGENCE (LEAD PAINT, LANDLORD OWED NO STATUTORY DUTY TO ABATE LEAD IN AN APARTMENT WHERE THE CHILD SPENT 50 HOURS PER WEEK IN THE CARE OF HER GRANDMOTHER, LAW REQUIRING LEAD PAINT ABATEMENT APPLIES ONLY TO APARTMENTS WHERE A CHILD RESIDES)/LEAD PAINT (LANDLORD OWED NO STATUTORY DUTY TO ABATE LEAD IN AN APARTMENT WHERE THE CHILD SPENT 50 HOURS PER WEEK IN THE CARE OF HER GRANDMOTHER, LAW REQUIRING LEAD PAINT ABATEMENT APPLIES ONLY TO APARTMENTS WHERE A CHILD RESIDES)/LANDLORD-TENANT (LEAD PAINT, LANDLORD OWED NO STATUTORY DUTY TO ABATE LEAD IN AN APARTMENT WHERE THE CHILD SPENT 50 HOURS PER WEEK IN THE CARE OF HER GRANDMOTHER, LAW REQUIRING LEAD PAINT ABATEMENT APPLIES ONLY TO APARTMENTS WHERE A CHILD RESIDES)

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