You are here: / Landlord-Tenant
, ,

Indemnification Clause in Lease/Alteration Agreements Unenforceable—No Exception for Lessor’s Negligence

The Second Department determined an indemnification clause in lease/alteration agreements was unenforceable because it was not limited to the lessee’s acts or omissions and because it did not make exceptions for the lessor’s negligence (General Obligations Law 5-321):

Broad indemnification provisions … which are not limited to the lessee’s acts or omissions, and which fail to make exceptions for the lessor’s own negligence, are unenforceable pursuant to General Obligations Law § 5-321 where [the relevant agreements] were not negotiated at arm’s length by two sophisticated business entities… . Nolasco v Soho Plaza Corp., 2015 NY Slip Op 05164, 2nd Dept 6-17-15

 

, , ,

Late Notice of Claim Should Not Have Been Deemed Timely (Sua Sponte, Nunc Pro Tunc)—the 90 Days Started Running When Plaintiff’s Asthma Symptoms Worsened, Not When a Doctor Connected the Symptoms to Mold in the Apartment—the Plaintiff Did Not Make a Motion for Permission to File a Late Notice of Claim

The First Department determined Supreme Court should not have, sua sponte (in the absence of a motion by the plaintiff), deemed plaintiff’s late notice of claim timely filed nunc pro tunc. The claim alleged mold resulting from a leak in plaintiff’s New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA) apartment exacerbated plaintiff’s asthma.  The First Department found that the cause of action accrued when plaintiff’s symptoms worsened, no later than February, 2011, not when a connection between the mold and plaintiff’s symptoms was suggested by a doctor in March 2011:

[Plaintiff] was required to file a notice of claim within 90 days after “the date of [her] discovery of the injury” or the date on which “through the exercise of reasonable diligence the injury should have been discovered” (CPLR 214-c[3]; see General Municipal Law § 50-e[1][a]…). NYCHA established that plaintiff’s claim accrued no later than February 2011, by relying on plaintiff’s testimony that her asthma symptoms worsened, resulting in more frequent attacks and hospital visits, starting in September or December of 2010, or January or February of 2011, when she was prescribed additional medications, as reflected in her hospital records. Thus, the notice of claim, filed over 90 days later in June 2011, without leave of court, was late and without effect … .

Plaintiff argues that her claim did not accrue until March 2011, when a doctor noted a connection between her symptoms and the mold in her apartment. However, a “cause of action for damages resulting from exposure to toxic substances accrues when the plaintiff begins to suffer the manifestations and symptoms of his or her physical condition, i.e.[,] when the injury is apparent, not when the specific cause of the injury is identified” … .

The court lacked authority to deem the late notice of claim timely filed nunc pro tunc, since plaintiff never moved for such relief and the statutory time limitation for bringing the claim had already expired when NYCHA moved for summary judgment … . Vincent v New York City Hous. Auth., 2015 NY Slip Op 04767, 1st Dept 6-9-15

 

, ,

Triggering Event for the Statute of Limitations Re: a Challenge of the Termination of Section 8 Rent Subsidies Is the Sending of the So-Called T-3 Letter-Notification, Irrespective of Whether the Two Prior Required Letter-Notifications Were Sent

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Stein, over a three-judge dissent, determined that the so-called T-3 letter to tenants from the New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA), which notifies tenants of the termination of their Section 8 rent subsidies, is the triggering event for the four-month statute of limitations for challenging the termination. The applicable “Williams consent judgment” mandates a three-step procedure for termination of the rent subsidies, essentially three notifications to tenants, of which the T-3 letter is the last. The issue before the court was whether the NYCHA’s inability to show the first two notifications were properly sent prevented the statute of limitations from running when the T-3 letter was sent.  The Court of Appeals held that, although the failure to follow the three-step procedure is a defense to the termination of the subsidies, the statute of limitations for any challenge properly runs from the sending of the T-3 letter:

The plain language of the Williams consent judgment draws a distinction between what is required to commence the limitations period for a challenge to a termination of Section 8 benefits, on the one hand, and what is required for NYCHA to establish the merit of such a termination — including NYCHA’s full compliance with the notice requirements — on the other hand. Matter of Banos v Rhea, 2015 NY Slip Op 04029, CtApp 5-12-15

 

, ,

Landlord Failed to Eliminate Triable Issues of Fact Concerning Whether He Had Constructive Notice of the Presence of Lead Paint

In the context of a summary judgment motion, the Fourth Department determined the landlord did not meet his burden of demonstrating he did not have constructive notice of the presence of lead paint:

Where, as here, there is no evidence that the landlord had actual notice of the existence of a hazardous lead paint condition, plaintiff may establish that defendant had constructive notice of such condition by demonstrating that the landlord “(1) retained a right of entry to the premises and assumed a duty to make repairs, (2) knew that the apartment was constructed at a time before lead-based interior paint was banned, (3) was aware that paint was peeling on the premises, (4) knew of the hazards of lead-based paint to young children and (5) knew that a young child lived in the apartment” (Chapman v Silber, 97 NY2d 9, 15). Defendant conceded that he was aware that a young child lived in the subject premises, and we conclude that he failed to meet his burden on the four remaining Chapman factors… . Wood v Giordano, 2015 NY Slip Op 03984, 4th Dept 5-8-15

 

,

Lessee Who Has Authority to Control the Work Is Liable Under the Labor Law

The Second Department reversed Supreme Court finding that plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment on his Labor Law 240 (1) claim. Plaintiff alleged that a ladder twisted out from under him when he was carrying materials to the roof and defendant (Sigma) did not raise a question of fact whether plaintiff’s conduct was the sole proximate cause of his injuries. The court explained the circumstances under which a tenant, the defendant (Sigma) here, is liable under the Labor Law:

Labor Law § 240(1) applies to owners, contractors, and their agents (see Labor Law § 240[1]…). A party is deemed to be an agent of an owner or contractor under the Labor Law when it has the ” ability to control the activity which brought about the injury'” … . A lessee of real property that hires a contractor and has the right to control the work at the property is considered to be an owner within the meaning of the law … . Moreover, a lessee of property may be liable as an “owner” when it “has the right or authority to control the work site, even if the lessee did not hire the general contractor” … . The key question is whether the defendant had the right to insist that proper safety practices were followed … . Here, the evidence established that Sigma was the lessee of the premises where the accident occurred and that the president of Sigma hired the injured plaintiff to perform the work and controlled his work. Seferovic v Atlantic Real Estate Holdings, LLC, 2015 NY Slip Op 03343, 2nd Dept 4-22-15

 

,

Landlord Failed to Demonstrate Assault on Tenant Was Not Foreseeable—Landlord’s Summary Judgment Motion Properly Denied

The Second Department determined Supreme Court properly denied landlord’s motion for summary judgment in an action stemming from an assault on a tenant at the landlord’s premises.  The assault took place when the lone security guard took his regular lunch break, leaving the premises unguarded. The defendant did not demonstrate a lack of notice of the same or similar criminal conduct and therefore failed to demonstrate the assault was not foreseeable:

A landlord is not the insurer of the safety of its tenants … . Nevertheless, landlords have a duty to take reasonable precautions to protect tenants and visitors from foreseeable harm, including foreseeable criminal conduct by third parties … . To establish that criminal acts were foreseeable, the criminal conduct at issue must be shown to be reasonably predictable based on the prior occurrence of the same or similar criminal activity at a location sufficiently proximate to the subject location … .

Here, on its motion for summary judgment, [the landlord] failed to establish, prima facie, that it lacked notice of the same or similar criminal activity occurring on the premises. Karim v 89th Jamaica Realty Co., L.P., 2015 NY Slip Op 03329, 2nd Dept 4-22-15

 

, ,

Failure to Submit Lease to Show No Contractual Obligation to Remove Ice And Snow Precluded Summary Judgment to Defendant Out-of-Possession Landlord—Evidence First Submitted in Reply Papers Properly Not Considered

The Second Department determined defendant out-of-possession landlord was not entitled to summary judgment in a slip and fall case because it did not submit the lease and therefore did not demonstrate the absence of any obligation to remove ice and snow.  The court noted that it could not consider evidence presented for the first time in reply papers:

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 plaintiff did not allege that the landlord’s duty was statutory or based on a course of conduct. Thus, to prevail on its motion, [defendant] was required to demonstrate, prima facie, that it had not retained control over the premises, or that it had no contractual duty to remove snow and ice from the area where the plaintiff allegedly slipped and fell. [Defendant] failed to sustain this burden because it failed to submit a copy of the lease between it and the entity that was the tenant of the subject premises at the time of the accident … .  Poole v MCPJF, Inc., 2015 NY Slip Op 03142, 2nd Dept 4-15-15

 

,

Tenant Has Duty to Keep Premises Reasonably Safe

The Second Department noted that a tenant (TJX) has an obligation to keep the premises safe even if the landlord agreed in the lease to keep the premises in good repair.  Here it was alleged that water dripping from a fire escape resulted in an icy area on the abutting sidewalk where plaintiff fell:

“A tenant has a common-law duty to remove dangerous or defective conditions from the premises it occupies, even though the landlord may have explicitly agreed in the lease to maintain the premises and keep them in good repair” … . Here, TJX failed to establish, prima facie, that it had no duty to maintain the fire escape in a reasonably safe condition … . Sellitti v TJX Cos., Inc., 2015 NY Slip Op 02748, 2nd Dept 4-1-15

 

, ,

Criteria for Liability for Lead Paint Exposure Described

Reversing Supreme Court, the Second Department determined defendants in a lead paint case failed to demonstrate they did not have notice of the dangerous condition.  The court explained the relevant criteria:

Under New York common law, a landowner “has a duty to maintain his or her premises in a reasonably safe condition” … . “[I]n order for a landlord to be held liable for injuries resulting from a defective condition upon the premises, the plaintiff must establish that the landlord had actual or constructive notice of the condition for such a period of time that, in the exercise of reasonable care, it should have been corrected” … . Constructive notice of a hazardous lead-based paint condition may be established by proof “that the landlord (1) retained a right of entry to the premises and assumed a duty to make repairs, (2) knew that the apartment was constructed at a time before lead-based interior paint was banned, (3) was aware that paint was peeling on the premises, (4) knew of the hazards of lead-based paint to young children, and (5) knew that a young child lived in the apartment” … . Greene v Mullen, 2015 NY Slip Op 02729, 2nd Dept 4-1-15

 

,

Out-of-Possession Landlord Not Liable—Criteria Described

The Second Department determined summary judgment should have been granted to the out-of-possession landlords and explained the applicable law. Plaintiff’s leg went through the roof of landlords’ building:

“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 building defendants established, prima facie, that I Bldg and Surfside were out-of-possession landlords with no contractual obligation by submitting the lease, which obligated the tenant to maintain the premises and make all structural and nonstructural repairs … . Although I Bldg and Surfside retained a right to enter the premises, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the allegedly dangerous condition on the premises violated an applicable statutory provision sufficient to impose liability upon them … . The plaintiff did not contend that the building defendants assumed a duty to repair the premises by virtue of a course of conduct. Martin v I Bldg Co., Inc., 2015 NY Slip Op 02100, 2nd Dept 3-18-15

 

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