You are here: / Landlord-Tenant
, , ,

DEFENDANT, AS AN OUT-OF-POSSESSION LANDLORD, WAS NOT LIABLE FOR AN ALLEGED DANGEROUS CONDITION ON THE PROPERTY; PLAINTIFF’S REFERENCES TO UNPLEADED CAUSES OF ACTION (LABOR LAW 240(1) AND LABOR LAW 241(6)) IN THE BILL OF PARTICULARS WERE UNSUPPORTED; THE COMPLAINT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court and dismissing plaintiff’s complaint, determined defendant was an out-of-possession landlord who was not responsible for the alleged dangerous condition on the property and the Labor Law 240(1) and 241(6) causes of action, although mentioned in the bill of particulars, were not pleaded. Plaintiff was doing work on cabinets when she was struck by a piece of wood that flew off a table saw operated by another worker. She sued under a negligence theory (dangerous condition) and under Labor Law section 200 (which codifies common law negligence):

“[A] landowner who has transferred possession and control is generally not liable for injuries caused by dangerous conditions on the property” … . “‘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'” … .

… [T]he evidence … , including … the written lease … and transcripts of the deposition testimony … established … that the defendant was an out-of-possession landlord that had relinquished control of the subject property to Tobin and had not assumed a duty to maintain the property in a reasonably safe condition by a course of conduct … . Although the defendant reserved a right of entry under the lease, this did not provide a sufficient basis on which to impose liability upon the defendant for injuries caused by a dangerous condition, as the condition did not violate a specific statute, nor was it a significant structural or design defect … .

Modern practice permits a plaintiff, in some circumstances, to successfully oppose a motion for summary judgment by relying on an unpleaded cause of action that is supported by the plaintiff’s submissions, where the plaintiff has not engaged in unexcused protracted delay in presenting the new theory of liability… . … Here … the plaintiff’s unpleaded causes of action alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6) are not supported by the plaintiff’s submissions, as the record demonstrates that the plaintiff’s work at the time of her injury did not involve “construction, excavation or demolition work” within the meaning of Labor Law § 241(6), or “erection, demolition, repairing, altering, painting, cleaning or pointing of a building or structure” within the meaning of Labor Law § 240(1) … . Miranda v 1320 Entertainment, Inc., 2024 NY Slip Op 04313, Second Dept 8-28-24

Practice Point: Here the defendant demonstrated out-of-possession landlord status and was therefore not liable for an alleged dangerous condition on the property.​

Practice Point: Although unpleaded causes of action mentioned for the first time in the bill of particulars can be considered in opposition to a summary judgment motion, here the unpleaded Labor Law 240(1) and 241(6) causes of action were unsupported by the plaintiff’s submissions. The complaint should have been dismissed.

 

, ,

THE LEASE FOR THE LAND WHERE PLAINTIFF PLANTED CROPS HAD A MUTUAL 90-DAY TERMINATION PROVISION WHICH DEFENDANTS EXERCISED; DEFENDANTS THEN DESTROYED THE CROPS MONTHS BEFORE THEY COULD BE HARVESTED; PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT STATED CAUSES OF ACTION FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT AND CONVERSION BASED UPON THE IMPLIED COVENANT OF GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING AND THE THEORY OF EMBLEMENTS (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Pritzker, over a partial dissent, determined the complaint stated causes of action for breach of contract and conversion. Plaintiffs leased land from defendants to grow crops. There was a provision in the lease allowing termination upon 90 days notice. Plaintiffs alleged they planted crops in the fall of 2019 which could not be harvested until the fall of 2020. Defendants elected to terminate the contract effective May 2020. In May 2020 defendants entered the land and destroyed the crops with herbicide: The Third Department found that the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing and the theory of emblements should be harmonized with the termination provision:

… [T]he purpose of the lease agreement was clear and, since both parties were aware that the land was to be used to seed, maintain and harvest the crops[*3], defendants were under a contractual duty to allow plaintiffs to fulfill this purpose under the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing … . Against this backdrop, both parties had the express right to terminate the lease agreement with 90 days’ notice. Therefore, plaintiffs’ right of possession would extinguish upon rightful termination and, as such, without an express or implied obligation, plaintiffs would be unable to recover on a breach of contract theory … . However, given the nature of the agricultural lease agreement, the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing and the theory of emblements must be harmonized with the mutual termination provision. * * *

… [G]iven the purpose of the lease agreement as well as the early termination provision, the doctrine of emblements created an implied contractual term granting plaintiffs a right of reentry to harvest their crops in the event that defendants exercised the early termination provision. * * *

… [P]laintiffs have adequately alleged a possessory interest in the … crops because, under the doctrine of emblements, they retained a right to harvest and take away those crops after defendants terminated their tenancy early … . Together with plaintiffs’ allegation that defendants destroyed the cereal crops, plaintiffs’ conversion cause of action was improperly dismissed … . Van Amburgh v Boadle, 2024 NY Slip Op 04168, Third Dept 8-8-24

Practice Point: Here, although the land-lease for crop-growing included a mutual 90-day termination provision, the exercise of the termination provision must be harmonized with the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing and the theory of emblements. Because defendants terminated the lease before plaintiffs could harvest the crops, the complaint stated causes of action for breach of contract and conversion.​

 

,

QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT WAS AN OUT-OF-POSSESSION LANDLORD PRECLUDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF THE LANDLORD IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court in this slip and fall case, determined there were questions of fact whether the landlord was an out-of-possession landlord:

“A property owner has a duty to maintain its premises in a reasonably safe condition” … . “That duty is premised on the landowner’s exercise of control over the property, as the person in possession and control of property is best able to identify and prevent any harm to others” … . “It has been held uniformly that control is the test which measures generally the responsibility in tort of the owner of real property” … . “Thus, a landowner who has transferred possession and control is generally not liable for injuries caused by dangerous conditions on the property” … .

… [D]efendants failed to establish their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them on the ground that they were out-of-possession landlords. Although the defendants submitted a lease establishing that a tenant leased the entire office building and was responsible for the maintenance of vestibules and entrances, the defendants’ submissions also demonstrated that they maintained an office in the building and that, each work day, the defendants’ employee used the building entrance where the plaintiff’s slip and fall occurred. The defendants’ submissions further demonstrated that this employee would report any defects in the building to the building’s security, and the tenant would then remedy those defects. Under these circumstances, triable issues of fact exist as to the defendants’ control of the subject property and whether they were out-of-possession landlords … . Grullon v 57-115 Assoc., L.P., 2024 NY Slip Op 03811, Second Dept 7-17-24

Practice Point: Here, even though the lease made the tenant responsible for maintenance, the fact that the landlord had an office in the building raised a question of fact whether the landlord could escape liability for a slip and fall as an out-of-possession landlord.​

 

, , , ,

THE DEFENSE EXPERT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN PRECLUDED FROM TESTIFYING IN THIS CEILING-COLLAPSE CASE; THE MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendants landlord and property manager were entitled to have the liability verdict set aside in the interest of justice because the judge should not have precluded testimony by defendants’ expert. Plaintiff-tenants were injured when their apartment ceiling collapsed. The defendant expert would have testified there would have been no visible signs that the ceiling was about to collapse. The court noted that plaintiffs’ request for a Frye hearing was properly denied because the expert would have testified based upon his personal training and experience:

“[E]xpert opinion is proper when it would help to clarify an issue calling for professional or technical knowledge, possessed by the expert and beyond the ken of the typical juror” … . The expert must possess “the requisite skill, training, education, knowledge or experience from which it can be assumed that the information imparted or the opinion rendered is reliable” … . “The expert’s opinion, taken as a whole, must also reflect an acceptable level of certainty in order to be admissible” … .

Here, the defendants’ CPLR 3101(d) disclosure indicated that Yarmus [the defense expert], a professional engineer with experience in construction management and building and safety code compliance, would testify, inter alia, as to the materials and manner of construction of the ceiling at issue, as well as the manner in which ceilings so constructed may detach and collapse, allegedly, without a defect that is detectable so as to give notice of a dangerous condition. Contrary to the plaintiffs’ contention, Yarmus’s proposed testimony was neither so conclusory or speculative, nor without basis in the record, as to render it inadmissible … .

… “[T]he long-recognized rule of Frye . . . is that expert testimony based on scientific principles or procedures is admissible but only after a principle or procedure has ‘gained general acceptance’ in its specified field … . An expert opinion based on personal training and experience is not subject to a Frye analysis … . Ghazala v Shore Haven Apt. Del, LLC, 2024 NY Slip Op 03681, Second Dept 7-3-24

Practice Point; If a judge makes a mistake by precluding admissible testimony, here testimony by the defense expert, the judge has the power to set aside the verdict in the interest of justice. The Appellate Division reversed the denial of the motion to set aside the verdict.

 

,

HERE A STIPULATION BETWEEN LANDLORD AND TENANT SETTING THE RENT FOR A RENT STABILIZED LEASE VIOLATED THE RENT STABILIZATION LAW (RSL) RENDERING THE STIPULATION VOID (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, reversing the Appellate Division, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Halligan, determined “an agreement waiving a benefit of the Rent Stabilization Laws is void as against public policy. This rule is not altered by the tenant’s status. Accordingly, the stipulation at issue here, which required the tenant to waive his right to file a Fair Market Rent Appeal (FMRA), is void and did not provide a path to deregulation of the subject apartment:”

The Stipulation between McKinney [the tenant] and the landlord provided that McKinney “agrees to accept and the landlord agrees to offer a rent stabilized lease” in McKinney’s name at a rate of “$650 per month.” It also stated that “$1,650 per month is a fair rent for [the] apartment being removed from Rent Control,” a proviso apparently intended to set the initial legal regulated rent under the Rent Stabilization Laws (RSL). The Stipulation further provided that “[f]or as long as Ed McKinney is the tenant, his rent shall be $650 per month plus allowable rental increases.” The effect of that provision, which neither party disputes, was to ensure that McKinney would pay a preferential rate of $650, with subsequent increases tied to this number for the duration of his tenancy. McKinney also agreed “not to challenge the rent,” thereby waiving his right to challenge the amount of the initial rent through a Fair Market Rent Appeal (FMRA) proceeding. * * *

By securing McKinney’s explicit agreement “not to challenge the rent,” the Stipulation waived his right to file an FMRA. That bargain circumvented the statutory process, and consequently the Stipulation is void in its entirety as a matter of law … . Because the Stipulation is void, [the landlord’s] registration statement based on the Stipulation is as well, and therefore “neither party is entitled to rely on it” … and it cannot serve as the basis for deregulation. It remains to be determined whether the apartment was properly deregulated on some other ground. Liggett v Lew Realty LLC, 2024 NY Slip Op 03378, CtApp 6-30-24

Practice Point: Re: rent stabilized leases, a stipulation which sets the rent but provides that the tenant will not challenge the rent violates the Rent Stabilization Law rendering the stipulation void.

 

,

A LANDLORD WHO SEEKS TO RETAIN PART OF A TENANT’S SECURITY DEPOSIT MUST PROVIDE THE TENANT WITH AN ITEMIZED STATEMENT OF THE DAMAGE WITHIN 14 DAYS OF THE VACATION OF THE PROPERTY; HERE THE ITEMIZED STATEMENT WAS SIX DAYS LATE, PRECLUDING SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF THE LANDLORD (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the fact that defendant landlord did not comply with General Obligations Law section 7 (which requires the landlord who seeks to retain a portion of a security deposit for damage to the property to submit an itemized statement within 14 days of the tenant’s vacation of the property} precluded summary judgment in favor of the landlord. Here the landlord submitted the itemized statement six days late:

“In 2019, the legislature enacted the Housing Stability and Tenant Protection Act of 2019 (hereinafter HSTPA) (L 2019, ch 36)” … , “landmark legislation making sweeping changes to the rent laws and adding greater protections for tenants throughout the State” … . In order to use security deposit funds to pay the cost of repairing damages caused by a tenant … , a landlord must comply, among other things, with General Obligations Law § 7-108(1-a)(e), one of the statutory provisions enacted by HSTPA. Pursuant to General Obligations Law § 7-108(1-a)(e), “[w]ithin fourteen days after the tenant has vacated the premises, the landlord shall provide the tenant with an itemized statement indicating the basis for the amount of the deposit retained, if any, and shall return any remaining portion of the deposit to the tenant.” General Obligations Law § 7-108(1-a)(e) further provides that, “[i]f a landlord fails to provide the tenant with the statement and deposit within fourteen days, the landlord shall forfeit any right to retain any portion of the deposit” … . Cohen v Abruzzo, 2024 NY Slip Op 03163, Second Dept 6-12-24

Practice Point: Pursuant to General Obligations Law section 7, a landlord who seeks to retain part of a tenant’s security deposit must provide the tenant with an itemized statement of the damages within 14 days of the vacation of the property.

 

, ,

TENANT’S ATTACK ON PLAINTIFF WAS NOT FORESEEABLE; THEREFORE THE LANDLORD WAS NOT LIABLE IN NEGLIGENCE FOR FAILING TO EVICT THE TENANT (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined a tenant’s (Girard’s) attack on plaintiff was not foreseeable. Therefore the negligence action against the landlord for failing to evict Girard was dismissed:

Defendant demonstrated … that it was not liable for third-party defendant Girard’s attack on plaintiff because it was not reasonably foreseeable … . No evidence was presented that Girard had engaged in criminal conduct prior to the attack or that he was violent, had a propensity toward violence, or had threatened any tenants of the building. Inconsiderate behavior, such as playing loud music at all hours, engaging in loud arguments with his sister in the apartment, and banging on the apartment walls, is insufficient to have placed defendant on notice that Girard would stab plaintiff in response to plaintiff’s noise complaints … . While it was conceivable that the dispute might escalate into violence, “conceivability is not the equivalent of foreseeability” … . Plaintiff failed to present evidence sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact concerning whether defendant was negligent in not taking steps to evict Girard prior to the attack…. . Goris v New York City Hous. Auth., 2024 NY Slip Op 02661, First Dept 5-14-24

Practice Point: Here the tenant who attacked plaintiff, although loud and argumentative, had never been violent. Therefore the tenant’s attack was not foreseeable and the landlord could not be held liable in negligence for failing to evict the tenant.

 

,

PLAINTIFF’S ALLOWING HIS ATTACKER INTO HIS APARTMENT WAS AN INTERVENING ACT AND A SUPERSEDING PROXIMATE CAUSE WHICH RELIEVED THE BUILDING DEFENDANTS OF ANY LIABILITY FOR LAPSES IN SECURITY (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that there was evidence building security was lax, but plaintiff’s allowing the attacker, whom plaintiff knew, into to plaintiff’s apartment was an intervening act relieving the building defendants from liability:

Plaintiff, a psychiatrist, was conducting a patient session in his home office when Jacob Nolan, the cousin of his estranged former partner barged unannounced into the office. He was carrying a large black duffel bag and demanded that plaintiff give him certain financial documents required for the child shared by plaintiff and the former partner.… Plaintiff reproached Nolan, successfully expelled him from the apartment and locked the door. After the session, the patient departed but quickly returned to advise the plaintiff that the man who barged in was loitering in a common area of the building. Plaintiff then escorted his patient to the elevator and again engaged Nolan in dialogue. Nolan again communicated that his purported purpose was to retrieve some financial documents for the former partner and asked to use the bathroom in plaintiff’s apartment (which plaintiff made available to patients). Plaintiff then permitted Nolan into his locked apartment to use the bathroom, while plaintiff printed the form Nolan had requested. Nolan then suddenly emerged from the bathroom and attacked plaintiff, hitting him with a sledgehammer and stabbing him multiple times with a knife. Nolan and the former partner were both arrested and convicted for felony assaults upon the plaintiff.

… Supreme Court should have granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. … [P]laintiff raised legitimate issues regarding lapses in the defendants’ security protocols, such as defendants’ allowing Nolan to enter and wander around the building for over twenty minutes before exiting, only to re-enter the building minutes later without being challenged by the building staff about his continued presence. Plaintiff’s conduct in re-admitting Nolan into the apartment after earlier expelling him, however, constituted an intervening act and a superseding proximate cause … . Weiss v Park Towers S. Co., LLC, 2024 NY Slip Op 02612, First Dept 5-9-24

Practice Point: Here plaintiff knew his attacker and allowed the attacker into his apartment. That was an intervening act and a superseding proximate cause of plaintiff’s injuries which insulated the building defendants from liability for lapses in security.

 

,

THE RESTRICTIVE COVENANT LIMITED THE USE OF THE PROPERTY TO ONLY “SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL PURPOSES;” USE OF THE PROPERTY FOR SHORT-TERM RENTALS THROUGH AIRBNB VIOLATES THE RESTRICTIVE COVENANT (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Powers, determined that a restrictive covenant from a common grantor restricting the use of the property to only “single-family residential purposes” prohibited plaintiff from using the property for short-term rentals through Airbnb. Such use is not “residential:”

… [T]he restrictive covenant limits the permissible use to only “single[-]family residential purposes.” This phrase unambiguously directs that all properties within the subdivision must be used for only residential purposes, and, thus, any and all rentals must be to those who would utilize the property for residential purposes — i.e., as a residence. A residence is the location where an individual “actually lives” and is established by “[t]he act or fact of living in a given place for some time” (Black’s Law Dictionary [11th ed 2019], residence). Although there is no express durational requirement, a stay in a short-term rental property does not meet this definition … . Lodgers in short-term rental properties do not live on the premises but are instead on a short trip and often maintain a residence elsewhere where they “actually live[ ]” (Black’s Law Dictionary [11th ed 2019], residence). This is true even though lodgers may have access to the entirety of the property and may use it in the same manner as a resident, including by cooking meals and sleeping as plaintiff highlighted. West Mtn. Assets LLC v Dobkowski, 2024 NY Slip Op 02355, Third Dept 5-2-24

Practice Point: Here the restrictive covenant limited the use of the property to “residential” use. A “residence” is where someone actually lives, not where someone stays for a short time while on a trip. Therefore the restrictive covenant precluded short-term rentals of the property through Airbnb.

 

, ,

THE COMPLAINT SUFFICIENTLY ALLEGED BOTH BREACH OF CONTRACT AND ANTICIPATORY REPUDIATION OF THE CONTRACT (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Wilson, in a factually-complex case which cannot be fairly summarized here. determined the complaint adequately alleged both a breach and an anticipatory repudiation of a contract which encompassed the replacement by plaintiff developer of defendant’s single room occupancy building with a mixed-use residential and commercial building for a 40-year lease term:

” ‘An anticipatory breach of contract by a promisor is a repudiation of [its] contractual duty before the time fixed in the contract for . . . performance has arrived’ ” … . Under the doctrine of anticipatory repudiation or anticipatory breach, “if one party to a contract repudiates [its] duties thereunder prior to the time designated for performance and before [it] has received all of the consideration due . . . thereunder, such repudiation entitles the nonrepudiating party to claim damages for total breach” … . To constitute repudiation, “there must be some express and absolute refusal to perform” … that is “positive and unequivocal” … .

The first cause of action alleges [defendant] engaged in multiple acts that breached the ground lease agreement: a set of acts in refusing to sign the cure agreement tendered in 2015, and a 2021 statement that it would never sign any agreement. Contrary to the conclusions of the courts below, a claim for breach and a claim for anticipatory repudiation can both be stated on these facts at the pleading stage. * * *

Taking the facts alleged in the complaint as true, which we must do at this stage of the proceeding, [plaintiff] sufficiently demonstrated that [defendant’s] 2021 statement was both a new development and a distinct “material breach that escalated, for the first time, to an unequivocal repudiation” … . Audthan LLC v Nick & Duke, LLC, 2024 NY Slip Op 02223, CtApp 4-25-24

Practice Point: Here the complaint adequately alleged both a breach of contract and an anticipatory repudiation of the contract.

 

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