You are here: / Landlord-Tenant
,

City Can Not Be Held Liable for Injuries Caused by Attacking Dogs About Which Complaints Had Been Made—No Special Relationship Between Plaintiff’s Decedent and City

The Second Department determined no special relationship existed between plaiintiff’s decedent and the city such that the city could be held liable for the alleged failure to address complaints about the dogs which attacked plaintiff’s decedent, who died from the injuries.  The court explained why none of the criteria for a special relationship applied:

” A special relationship can be formed in three ways: (1) when the municipality violates a statutory duty enacted for the benefit of a particular class of persons; (2) when it voluntarily assumes a duty that generates justifiable reliance by the person who benefits from the duty; or (3) when the municipality assumes positive direction and control in the face of a known, blatant and dangerous safety violation'” … .

As for the first way of forming a special relationship, contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, a private right of action may not be fairly implied from Agriculture and Markets Law (hereinafter AML) § 123 … . The Supreme Court properly determined that the recognition of a private right of action would be inconsistent with the legislative scheme underlying AML § 123 … . Accordingly, no special relationship was created between the City and the decedent through the breach of a statutory duty.

As for the second way of forming a special relationship, the City met its prima facie burden of demonstrating its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting evidence that it did not voluntarily assume a duty toward the decedent. To demonstrate that a municipality voluntarily assumed an affirmative duty and a plaintiff justifiably relied on the municipality’s undertaking, four elements must be shown: “(1) an assumption by a municipality, through promises or actions, of an affirmative duty to act on behalf of the injured party; (2) knowledge on the part of a municipality’s agents that inaction could lead to harm; (3) some form of direct contact between the municipality’s agents and the injured party; and (4) that party’s justifiable reliance on the municipality’s affirmative undertaking” … . Here, the City established and the plaintiff concedes that the decedent never made direct contact with the City, and the circumstances here did not give rise to one of the narrow exceptions to this requirement … . The absence of direct contact negates the existence of a special relationship pursuant to the City’s voluntary assumption of a duty to the decedent … .

As for the third way of forming a special relationship, which has been recognized in only rare circumstances, the City must affirmatively act to place the plaintiff in harm’s way … . Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, the evidence established, prima facie, that the City did not take positive direction and control in the face of a known, blatant, and dangerous safety violation. Sutton v City of New York, 2014 NY Slip Op 05421, 2nd Dept 7-23-14

 

,

Question of Fact Whether Tenants Entitled to Equitable Renewal of Lease

The Second Department determined issues of fact were raised concerning whether the tenants should be allowed to remain in the leased premises.  Although the written option to renew the lease was never executed. the tenants alleged that oral assurances the tenants could remain were made by the landlord:

Although the documentary evidence conclusively established that the [tenants] failed to exercise the option to renew in accordance with the express terms of the lease …., contrary to [the landlord’s] contention, that evidence failed to conclusively establish that the [tenants] were not entitled to equitable renewal of the lease. Equity will intervene to relieve a commercial tenant’s failure to timely exercise an option to renew in accordance with the terms of the lease where “(1) the tenant’s failure to exercise the option in a timely fashion resulted from an honest mistake or inadvertence, (2) the nonrenewal of the lease would result in a substantial forfeiture by the tenant, and (3) the landlord would not be prejudiced by the renewal” … .

Here, the record reveals the existence of issues of fact as to whether the [tenants’] failure to exercise the option in accordance with the terms of the lease resulted from their mistaken belief that alleged discussions with [tenant’s agent] were sufficient to exercise the option, whether nonrenewal of the lease would result in the [tenants’] substantial forfeiture of a benefit as a result of the loss of valuable goodwill that they established at the present location, and whether [the landlord]  would suffer prejudice if the lease were renewed… . Waterfalls Italian Cuisine Inc v Tamarin, 2014 NY Slip Op 05323, 2nd Dept 7-16-14

 

, ,

Absentee Landlord Granted Summary Judgment in Lead-Paint Exposure Case—No Constructive Notice

The Fourth Department, over a dissent, determined summary judgment was properly granted to an absentee landlord in a lead-paint exposure case.  The landlord had never seen the property:

Defendant and his wife acquired the property by deed in January 1993, and they took title to the property as tenants by the entirety. Defendant’s wife died in 2004. Defendant testified at his deposition that his participation in the acquisition of the property was as an accommodation to the financial situation of his wife’s son and her nephew. Defendant denied that he had anything to do with the property and asserted that he was only an owner “on paper.” Defendant never saw the property, never went there, never received any rent, did not know that a child resided there and never received any correspondence related thereto. Defendant did not execute any lease agreements with respect to the property. “To establish that a landlord is liable for a lead-paint condition, a plaintiff must demonstrate that the landlord had actual or constructive notice of, and a reasonable opportunity to remedy, the hazardous condition” … . Hamilton v Picardo, 2014 NY Slip Op 04290, 4th Dept 6-13-14

 

Lease Provision Allowing Landlord to Comingle Security Deposit with Landlord’s Funds Was Void—Question of Fact Whether Both Parties’ Actions Resulted in Termination of the Lease by Operation of Law

The Second Department determined defendants-tenants were entitled to the return of their security deposit because the lease purported to allow the landlord to comingle the security deposit with the landlord’s funds.  The court further determined the landlord was not entitled to summary judgment for breach of the lease because the landlord accepted the keys to the property when the tenants left before the end of the lease, put the house on the market, and did not demand additional rent for over two months:

General Obligations Law § 7-103(1) provides that a security deposit with respect to the use or rental of real property “shall continue to be the money of the person making such deposit . . . and shall be held in trust by the person with whom such deposit or advance shall be made and shall not be mingled with the personal moneys or become an asset of the person receiving the same.” General Obligations Law § 7-103(3) provides that any provision of a lease “whereby a person who so deposits or advances money waives any provision of this section is absolutely void.” When a landlord commingles the security deposit with his or her personal funds in violation of General Obligations Law § 7-103(1), the tenant has “an immediate right to the return of the funds, even if the [tenant] had breached the lease” … . Here, the defendants made a prima facie showing of their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on their counterclaim by submitting the subject lease, which contained a provision stating that the security deposit may be commingled with the plaintiffs’ general funds. This provision is void by operation of General Obligation Law § 7-103(3), and, in addition, raises an inference that the plaintiffs violated General Obligations Law § 7-103(1) by commingling the security deposit with their own funds …. In opposition, the plaintiffs, who did not submit any evidence that they did not commingle the security deposit with their own funds, failed to raise a triable issue of fact.

The Supreme Court also properly denied the plaintiffs’ cross motion for summary judgment on the first cause of action, which was to recover damages for breach of the lease. The plaintiffs made a prima facie showing that the defendants breached the lease by failing to make monthly rent payments beginning on October 1, 2011. In opposition to that showing, the defendants submitted evidence that, after they vacated the house on or about September 4, 2011, the plaintiffs accepted a return of the keys to the house, immediately put the house on the market for sale, and did not demand payment of rent until late November, 2011. Accordingly, the defendants raised a triable issue of fact as to whether the parties both acted so inconsistently with the landlord-tenant relationship that a surrender of the premises was effected by operation of law, thereby terminating the lease prior to the rent becoming due on October 1, 2011… . Soloman v Ness, 2014 NY Slip Op 04185, 2nd Dept 6-11-14

 

, ,

Lack of Standing Defense Waived By Absence from Answer—Objections to Authority to Sign Lease Waived by Ratification of the Signed Documents

The Third Department, in a dispute over what was due and owing under a lease agreement, determined the “lack of standing” defense had been waived by the failure to raise it in the answer, and allegedly unauthorized execution of relevant documents had been ratified:

Initially, defendant claims that plaintiff lacks standing to enforce any obligations created by the lease or confirmation agreement, as it was not a party to either document. We agree with Supreme Court that this claim was waived by defendant’s failure to assert it in the answer (see CPLR 3211 [a]; [3]; [e]…).. Defendant further argues that the confirmation agreement is not legally valid, as it was not signed by plaintiff and … PDC [the original lessor, Provident Development Corporation] had transferred the building to plaintiff prior to executing the confirmation agreement. However, “[a];n unauthorized execution of an instrument affecting the title to land or an interest therein may be ratified by the owner of the land or interest so as to be binding upon him [or her];” … . Such a ratification may be shown by the owner’s failure to timely repudiate the unauthorized actions, or by conduct consistent with an intent to be bound … . Here, plaintiff has never repudiated PDC’s execution of the confirmation agreement; on the contrary, the record reveals that, beginning on the commencement date established by the agreement and continuing through 2011, plaintiff regularly invoiced defendant for payments due at the intervals and in the amounts specified in that agreement and accepted defendant’s resulting payments — thus ratifying the confirmation agreement by accepting benefits due thereunder … . Provident Bay Rd LLC v NYSARC Inc, 2014 NY Slip Op 03895, 3rd Dept 5-29-14

 

,

No Liability for Out-of-Possession Landlord—No “Significant Structural Defect” and No Code Violation

The First Department determined the out-of-possession landlord could not be held liable for an accident which occurred on a spiral staircase in a restaurant which connected a basement prep kitchen to the main-floor kitchen.  The staircase was not a “significant structural defect” and did not violation any provision of the NYC Administrative Code:

Liability does not lie against defendant out-of-possession landlord because the claimed riser, tread and handrail violations were not significant structural defects … . The staircase was not an “interior stair” as defined in § 27-132 of the NYC Administrative Code …. . Nor were the claimed violations of former §§ 27-127 and 27-128 specific statutory safety provisions that may serve as predicates for defendant landlord’s liability … . It is therefore immaterial whether landlord had notice of the allegedly dangerous condition or retained a right to reenter … . Podel v Glimmer Five LLC, 2014 NY Slip Op 03635, 1st Dept 5-20-14

 

,

Out-of-Possession Landlord Not Liable for Injury Caused by Trash Compactor on Property

The First Department determined an out-of-possession landlord had no liability for an injury caused by a trash compactor located on the property:

[Defendant] demonstrated that as an out-of-possession owner it had no responsibility for the complained-of defect, because the defect was not a significant structural or design defect that was contrary to a specific statutory safety provision … . In support of his position that the trash compactor is a structural component of the building, plaintiff cited Administrative Code of City of NY § 27-232 (defining “Service Equipment” to include “refuse disposal”). However, that provision is not a safety provision. Plaintiff’s argument that as an out-of-possession owner [defendant] remained liable for any dangerous condition that existed at the time it net leased the building—four years before the accident—is unavailing, since the net lessee “had reasonable time to discover and remedy the defect” after the conveyance of the property interests … . Humareda v 550A E 87th St LLC, 2014 NY Slip Op 03584, 1st Dept 5-15-14

 

,

Tenants Not Compelled to Bring a Plenary Action to Enforce a Fair Market Rent Appeal Award Because They Withheld Rent Until the Principal Balance of the Award Was Fully Credited to Them—Therefore Tenants Were Not Entitled to Prejudgment Interest Pursuant to CPLR 5001 (a)

The Second Department determined tenants who had been awarded a rent refund in a fair market rent appeal (FMRA) were not entitled to pre-judgment interest on the award.  The tenants had exercised their right under the Rent Stabilization Code to withhold rent until the principal balance of the FMRA award was fully credited.  Therefore, the tenants did not need to start a plenary action for prejudgment interest pursuant to CPLR 5001 (a) because there was no principal balance owing them:

“A tenant compelled to bring a plenary action to enforce a fair market rent appeal order is entitled to . . . prejudgment interest under CPLR 5001(a) computed from the date of the Rent Administrator’s order … ” … . However, where a tenant is not otherwise compelled to commence an action to enforce a fair market rent appeal award, the tenant is not entitled to recover interest on the award … . Prior to the commencement of this action, the plaintiffs exercised their right under the relevant provision of the Rent Stabilization Code (see 9 NYCRR 2522.3[d][1]) to withhold payment of rent until the principal balance of the FMRA award was fully credited to their account. The FMRA award was fully credited to the plaintiffs’ account by June 2007, after which the plaintiffs resumed paying rent. Thus, contrary to the plaintiffs’ allegations, there was no principal balance of the FMRA award due and owing to them. Under these circumstances, the plaintiffs were not compelled to commence this action to enforce their FMRA award. Thus, the plaintiffs are not entitled to the relief they sought in the complaint, including the alleged principal balance, prejudgment interest, or an award of an attorney’s fee. Eisner v M & E Rubin LLC, 2014 NY Slip Op 03477, 2nd Dept 5-14-1

 

, ,

Question of Fact About Property Owner’s Constructive Notice of Lead Paint/Tenant by the Entirety Could Be Vicariously Liable

The First Department determined questions of fact had been raised about whether defendant property owner, Robert Dvorak, had constructive notice of lead paint on the premises.  The court noted that the complaint should not have been dismissed against Diane Dvorak who also owned the property as a tenant by the entirety:

The motion court correctly found that plaintiffs raised questions of fact as to whether Robert A. Dvorak had constructive notice of lead-based paint in the Babylon premises, since they presented evidence that he entered the premises, made repairs, knew that the building was constructed before the banning of lead-based interior paint, was aware that paint was peeling on the premises, knew of the hazards of lead-based paint to young children, and knew that a young child lived in the house …. .The motion court should not have granted summary judgment to Diane L. Dvorak, since, as a tenant by the entirety with her husband Robert, she may be held vicariously liable for his actions toward the property… . Rivera v Neighborhood Partnership Hous Dev Fund Co Inc, 2014 NY Slip Op 02873, 1st Dept 3-29-14

 

, ,

Eviction Based Upon Firearm and Drugs Found in Petitioner’s Apartment Affirmed Despite the Lack of Evidence Petitioner Was Aware the Items Were In the Apartment (Apparently They Were Brought Into the Apartment by Her Older Children) and Despite Petitioner’s Unblemished Record as a Tenant

The First Department reversed Supreme Court and upheld the New York City Housing Authority’s eviction of petitioner based upon the police finding marijuana, oxycodone and an operable firearm in petitioner’s apartment.  Petitioner was not in the apartment at the time the items were found, and there was evidence the items were brought into the apartment by petitioner’s older children.  There was no evidence petitioner was aware the items were in the apartment.  Supreme Court had determined eviction “shocked the conscience” because petitioner had lived in the apartment for 23 years and had an otherwise unblemished record.  The First Department reinstated the eviction order:

…[W]e review the sanction of termination in accordance with the standard set forth in Matter of Pell v Board of Educ. of Union Free School Dist. No. 1 of Towns of Scarsdale & Mamaroneck, Westchester County (34 NY2d 222 [1974]). There, the Court of Appeals defined a penalty that is unsustainable as “shocking to one’s sense of fairness” as one which

“is so grave in its impact on the individual subjected to it that it is disproportionate to the misconduct, incompetence, failure or turpitude of the individual, or to the harm or risk of harm to the agency or institution, or to the public generally visited or threatened by the derelictions of the individuals. Additional factors would be the prospect of deterrence of the individual or of others in like situations, and therefore a reasonable prospect of recurrence of derelictions by the individual or persons similarly [situated]” (34 NY2d at 234).

Applying this standard, we find that the facts here support petitioner’s eviction. Eviction is undoubtedly a “grave” sanction. However, in permitting drugs and a lethal weapon to be present in her apartment, petitioner committed a serious breach of the code of conduct that is critical to any multiple dwelling community, and which warrants the ultimate penalty … . Petitioner’s neighbors have a right to live in a safe and drug-free environment, and petitioner significantly compromised their ability to do so, her alleged ignorance of the activities in her apartment notwithstanding … . Matter of Grant v New York City Hous Auth, 2014 NY Slip Op 02535, 1st Dept 4-15-14

 

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