You are here: / Landlord-Tenant
,

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

 

, , ,

Code Provision Requiring Issuance of Rental Certificate by City Prior to Leasing an Apartment Deemed Constitutional

The Third Department determined the code provision (Rental Certificate Ordinance or RCO) which required the issuance a rental certificate each time a vacant apartment is about to be leased is constitutional.  Entry to the apartment is accomplished either with the consent of the owner, or upon the issuance of a search warrant:

The RCO provided, in relevant part, that “[i]t shall be unlawful for any owner to permit the occupancy of any rental unit subject to [former article X of the Code of the City of Schenectady], unless such unit has a current and valid rental certificate or temporary rental certificate” (Code of City of Schenectady former § 167-59 [A]). Thus, “[w]henever a vacancy shall exist in a rental unit and a leasing is about to occur, or whenever there is a change in occupancy, the owner [must] submit a written application for a rental certificate” (Code of City of Schenectady former § 167-60 [A] [1]) and, “within five working days of receipt of [such] application, the Building Inspector [must] inspect the rental unit to determine if [it] is in compliance with” certain enumerated housing standards (Code of City of Schenectady former § 167-60 [A] [2]). If the Building Inspector is unable to perform the necessary inspection within the five-day window, the property owner may apply for a temporary rental certificate, which “is valid for 30 days or until the unit is inspected . . . , whichever is less” (Code of the City of Schenectady former § 167-60 [B]). In the event that the property owner refuses to grant access to the premises, “the Building Inspector shall apply for a search warrant or court order in an appropriate court and upon a showing that there [are] reasonable grounds to believe that a building or rental unit within [the] building is rented and occupied in violation of” the RCO (Code of the City of Schenectady former § 167-61). A property owner’s violation of the RCO may result in the imposition of a fine or other civil or criminal penalties (see Code of the City of Schenectady former § 167-67).

“It is well established that the 4th Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures extends to administrative inspections of private commercial premises. [Thus,] to the extent that the challenged ordinance directly or in practical effect authorizes or requires a warrantless inspection, it will not pass constitutional muster” … . Here, however, the RCO expressly required either the consent of the property owner or the issuance of a valid search warrant in order for the Building Inspector to conduct the administrative inspection. As the inclusion of the warrant requirement is sufficient to safeguard plaintiff’s constitutional rights, his challenge to the facial validity of the RCO must fail … . Wisoff v City of Schenectady, 2014 NY Slip Op 02479, 3rd Dept 4-10-14

 

, ,

Shareholder in a Cooperative Apartment Corporation Had Right to Inspect Books

The Second Department determined a shareholder in a cooperative apartment corporation (Acropolis) had a right to inspect the corporate books, including the  minutes of board meetings:

…[T]he petitioner satisfied the requirements of Business Corporation Law § 624(b), and is, therefore, entitled to a list of shareholders and their mailing addresses … as well as all Board meeting minutes from 2001 to the present. Moreover, in light of the terms of the relevant proprietary lease …, the petitioner established his contractual right to inspect all of Acropolis’s books of account from 2001 to the present. With respect to the petitioner’s entitlement to inspect additional corporate documents, “a shareholder has a common-law right to inspect a corporation’s books and records if the inspection is sought in good faith and for a valid purpose” … . Contrary to Acropolis’s contention, the Supreme Court was not required to hold a hearing prior to issuing its order and judgment directing it to allow the petitioner to review its books and records, because no substantial question of fact existed as to the petitioner’s good faith and purpose in seeking Acropolis’s books and records… . Matter of Goldstein v Acropolis Gardens Realty Corp, 2014 NY Slip Op 02436, 2nd Dept 4-9-14

 

, , ,

Corporate Officer Not Liable in Lead Paint Exposure Case Under “Commission of a Tort” Doctrine for Nonfeasance/No Evidence of Malfeasance or Misfeasance

The Fourt Department determined summary judgment should have been granted to a corporate officer in a lead paint exposure case. The court explained when the “commission of a tort” doctrine applies to corporate officers:

“The ‘commission of a tort’ doctrine permits personal liability to be imposed on a corporate officer for misfeasance or malfeasance, i.e., an affirmative tortious act; personal liability cannot be imposed on a corporate officer for nonfeasance, i.e., a failure to act” … . Such misfeasance may include exacerbating a hazardous lead paint condition by negligently attempting to correct it … . Here, defendant met his initial burden by presenting “evidence that, if uncontroverted, would have established that [he] did not personally participate in malfeasance or misfeasance constituting an affirmative tortious act” … . Plaintiff failed to raise an issue of fact in response, inasmuch as he submitted no evidence that defendant affirmatively created the dangerous lead condition at the property or did anything to make it worse; at most, defendant merely failed to remedy the condition. We thus conclude that he cannot be held individually liable to plaintiff in this action. Lloyd v Moore…, 200, 4th Dept 3-28-14

 

,

Tenant Unable to Raise Question of Fact About Whether Dampness and Mold Caused Her Physical Ailments/The Proof of General and Specific Causation Fell Short of Meeting the Frye Criteria for Scientific Tests Deemed “Generally Acceptable as Reliable” in the Scientific Community

In a full-fledged opinion by Judge Read, the Court of Appeals determined plaintiff was unable to raise a triable issue of fact about whether her physical injuries were caused by indoor exposure to dampness and mold.  The court did an extensive analysis of the expert evidence and determined, with respect to the Frye [293 F 1013] criteria, although “links” between plaintiff’s injuries and dampness and mold had been established,  the cause and effect relationship required under the Frye criteria had not been established:

In Frye v United States (293 F 1013, 1014 [DC Cir 1923]), the court rejected the testimony of a defense expert regarding the results of a “systolic blood pressure deception test” — an early type of polygraph test — because it had not yet “gained such standing and scientific recognition among physiological and psychological authorities as would justify the courts in admitting expert testimony deduced from the discovery, development, and experiments thus far made.” While the Frye test turns on acceptance by the relevant scientific community, we have never insisted that the particular procedure be “‘unanimously indorsed'” by scientists rather than “‘generally acceptable as reliable'” … . * * *

Thus, studies that show an association between a damp and moldy indoor environment and the medical conditions that [plaintiff’s expert]  attributes to [plaintiff’s] exposure to mold (bronchialasthma, rhino-sinusitis, hypersensitivity reactions and irritation reactions of the skin and mucous membranes) do not establish that the relevant scientific community generally accepts that molds cause these adverse health effects. But such studies necessarily furnish “some support” for causation since there can be no causation without an association (although, as explained, there can be an association without causation). For these reasons, the Appellate Division was incorrect when it ruled that the Frye standard was satisfied in this case because [plaintiff’s expert’s] opinions as to general causation find “some support” in the record. In sum, then, [plaintiff] has not raised a triable issue of fact with respect to general causation.

Additionally, even assuming that [plaintiff] demonstrated general causation, she did not show the necessary specific causation. Cornell v 360 West 51st Street Realty, LLC, 16, CtApp 3-27-14

 

, ,

Question of Fact Whether Out of Possession Landlord, Based on the Terms of the Lease, Had a Duty to Keep the Premises Safe (Labor Law 200)

The Second Department determined the provisions of a lease raised a question of fact about whether an out-of-possession landlord had a duty to keep the premises safe:

“Labor Law § 200 is a codification of the common-law duty of an owner or general contractor to provide workers with a safe place to work” … .  * * * …[T]o the extent that the plaintiff’s claims were based on a dangerous condition on the premises, specifically the structural design, construction, and condition of a portion of the floor, the defendants failed to establish their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. “An out-of-possession landlord generally will not be responsible for injuries occurring on its premises unless the landlord has a duty imposed by statute or assumed by contract or a course of conduct” … . Here, the lease submitted by the defendants in support of their motion provided, among other things, that the defendants were required to “repair the damaged structural parts of the Premises,” that they were “not required to repair or replace any equipment, fixtures, furnishings or decorations unless originally installed by Landlord,” and that they retained the “right to enter into and upon said premises, or any part thereof . . . for the purpose of . . . making such repairs or alterations therein as may be necessary for the safety and preservation thereof.” Based on these provisions, under the circumstances of this case, the defendants failed to establish as a matter of law that they did not have a duty imposed by contract to remedy the specific dangerous or defective condition alleged here. Thus, to prevail on their motion, the defendants were required to establish that they neither created the alleged dangerous or defective condition nor had actual or constructive notice thereof … . Here, the defendants failed to establish, prima facie, that they did not create the dangerous or defective condition alleged by the plaintiff to have contributed to his fall.  Quituizaca v Tucchiarone, 2014 NY Slip Op 02024, 2nd Dept 3-26-14

 

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