You are here: / Landlord-Tenant
,

Out-Of-Possession Landlord Not Liable for Slip and Fall

In affirming the grant of summary judgment to an out-of-possession landlord in a slip and fall case, the Second Department explained:

“An out-of-possession landlord’s duty to repair a dangerous condition on leased premises is imposed by statute or regulation, by contract, or by a course of conduct” … . Here, the defendant established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that it was an out-of-possession landlord, that it was not contractually obligated to maintain the subject parking lot, that it did not endeavor to maintain the subject parking lot, and that it did not owe the plaintiff a duty by virtue of any applicable statute or regulation … . Castillo v Wil-Cor Realty Co, Inc, 2013 NY Slip Op 05871, 2nd Dept 9-18-13

 

, ,

Four-Year Statute of Limitations for Rent Overcharge Claim

The Second Department explained the four-year statute of limitations for a rent overcharge claim:

“A rent overcharge claim, whether made in a judicial or administrative forum, is subject to a four-year statute of limitations” (… see CPLR 213-a; Administrative Code of City of NY § 26-516[a][2]). “[T]he Rent Regulation [*2]Reform Act of 1997 (RRRA) (L 1997, ch 116) clarified and reinforced the four-year statute of limitations applicable to rent overcharge claims (see Rent Stabilization Law of 1969 [Administrative Code of City of NY] § 26-516[a])” …, “preclud[ing] a court from examining the rental history of a housing accommodation prior to the four-year period preceding the filing of the rent overcharge complaint” …, except in situations where there are substantial indicia of fraud.

Here, the DHCR [NYS Division of Housing and Community Renewal] properly determined that July 17, 2005, was the “base date” of this proceeding, that is, the date four years prior to the filing of the relevant rent overcharge complaint. The DHCR properly refused to examine the rental history of the subject apartment prior to the “base date,” since there is no merit to the petitioner’s contention that there were substantial indicia of fraud in connection with the landlord’s establishment of the amount of the initial legal registered rent… .  Matter of Watson v New York State Div of Hous & Community Renewal…, 2013 NY Slip Op 05828, 2nd Dept 9-11-13

 

,

Summary Judgment Properly Granted to Out-of-Possession Landlord—Injury Caused by Defect in Floor

The Second Department affirmed the grant of summary judgment to an out-of-possession landlord (Hudson).  Plaintiff alleged a defect in a concrete floor caused his injury.  The Second Department wrote:

An out-of-possession landlord is not liable for injuries caused by dangerous conditions on leased premises in the absence of a statute imposing liability, a contractual provision placing the duty to repair on the landlord, or a course of conduct by the landlord giving rise to a duty … .

Here, the Hudson defendants established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that the code provisions relied upon by the plaintiff do not constitute statutes imposing liability, that the lease placed the responsibility to repair the floor defect on Kawasaki, and that the Hudson defendants did not, through a course of conduct, assume any duty to repair the alleged defect in the floor… . Volpe v Hudson View Assoc, LLC, 2013 NY slip Op 05814, 2nd Dept 9-11-13

 

, ,

Irreparable Injury to Plaintiffs Not Demonstrated and Balance of Equities Did Not Favor Plaintiffs Who Sought Injunction Prohibiting Landlord from Proceeding with a Water-Damage-Repair Plan Plaintiffs Thought Inadequate

In a full-fledged opinion by Justice Saxe, the First Department affirmed the denial of a preliminary injunction where plaintiffs-tenants sought to prohibit the landlord from going forward with repairs necessitated by water damage. The landlord proposed a repair-plan which involved the installation of insulation in the walls which would reduce the interior space of the 1400 square-foot apartment by about 50 square feet.  The plaintiffs wanted the exterior walls completely removed and replaced.  The First Department applied the standard criteria for injunctive relief and determined plaintiffs did not show irreparable harm and the balance of equities did not favor plaintiffs:

…[A]n alteration to residential quarters may be so minor that even though the tenant may be entitled to some form of compensation, a finding of irreparable harm is not warranted. Cases in which interference was sufficient to justify either injunctive relief or orders preventing the work from proceeding … do not preclude the possibility that interference in other circumstances may be so minimal as to fail to justify injunctive relief. Plaintiff failed to make a clear showing that the possible square footage reduction, a small fraction of the total footprint of the apartment, was more than de minimis. This conclusion, however, does not preclude compensation by other means.

Moreover, the balance of the equities does not weigh in plaintiff’s favor. Although plaintiff proposed an alternative method of performing the work on the exterior, she failed to respond to defendant’s assertion that this method would entail substantial extra expenses that defendant was under a fiduciary duty to avoid imposing on the other cooperative shareholders … . The claimed impact to plaintiff of the planned modifications to her apartment, most of which will be compensable based on plaintiffs’ breach of contract theory, is far outweighed by the expense to the co-op of demolishing and rebuilding exterior walls, especially when those walls have already been repaired and treated for waterproofing. Goldstone v Gracie Terrace Apt Corp, 2013 NY Slip Op 05725, 1st Dept 8-27-13

 

,

Constructive Condition Precedent Properly Fashioned by Court

In a full-fledged opinion by Justice Friedman, the First Department agreed with Supreme Court’s fashioning of a constructive condition precedent for the collection of additional rent under a lease. The First Department quoted the controlling law from the Court of Appeals:

“A condition precedent is an act or event, other than a lapse of time, which, unless the condition is excused, must occur before a duty to perform a promise in the agreement arises’ … . Most conditions precedent describe acts or events which must occur before a party is obliged to perform a promise made pursuant to an existing contract, a situation to be distinguished conceptually from a condition precedent to the formation or existence of the contract itself . . . .

“Conditions can be expressed or implied. Express conditions are those agreed to and imposed by the parties themselves. Implied or constructive conditions are those imposed by law to do justice’ … . Express conditions must be literally performed, whereas constructive conditions, which ordinarily arise from language of promise, are subject to the precept that substantial compliance is sufficient. The importance of the distinction has been explained by Professor Williston:

Since an express condition . . . depends for its validity on the manifested intention of the parties, it has the same sanctity as the promise itself. Though the court may regret the harshness of such a condition, as it may regret the harshness of a promise, it must, nevertheless, generally enforce the will of the parties unless to do so will violate public policy. Where, however, the law itself has imposed the condition, in absence of or irrespective of the manifested intention of the parties, it can deal with its creation as it pleases, shaping the boundaries of the constructive condition in such a way as to do justice and avoid hardship’. (5 Williston, Contracts § 669, at 154 [3d ed].)” Oppenheimer & Co. v Oppenheim, Appel, Dixon & Co. (86 NY2d 685, 690-691 [1995]).  Mount Sinai Hosp v 1998 Alexander Karten Annuity Trust, 2013 NY Slip Op 05667, 1st Dept 8-20-13

 

,

No Liability for Third Party Attack Inside Apartment Building; No Evidence Defendant Aware of Alleged Door-Lock Defect

The First Department determined the defendant Housing Authority could not be held liable for a criminal attack inside plaintiff’s apartment building absent proof the entry door lock was defective (and defendant had actual or constructive knowledge of the defect) or that defendant knew the door could be opened without a key:

While an assault on a young victim is most disturbing, a possessor of land is not an insurer of the safety of those who come onto its premises … . It remains that plaintiff’s injuries were the immediate and proximate result of a criminal attack committed by third parties, for whose actions the landlord is not responsible absent a failure to provide “even the most rudimentary security” of an entry door lock … . In the absence of proof that the Housing Authority contributed to the injuries sustained by plaintiff, a visitor to its premises, by failing to timely repair a “visible and apparent” defect in its front-door lock, no liability can be imposed … .  Batista v City of New York, 2013 NY Slip Op 05502, 1st  Dept 7-30-13

 

,

Major Capital Improvement Rent Increase Should Not Have Been Denied in Its Entirety

In a full-fledged opinion by Justice Renwick, the First Department determined the NYS Division of Housing and Community Renewal’s (DHCR’s) complete denial of a rent increase for a Major Capital Improvement (MCI) to an apartment building was arbitrary and capricious.  In the past, DHCR had denied an MCI rent increase only with respect to a small percentage of all the apartments in the improved building which were experiencing problems (like water damage) after the improvement was complete.  Here the DHCR had denied the increase in its entirety (for all apartments) based upon problems in a small number of apartments.  In noting that the DHCR determination was not supported by any relevant precedent (one aspect of a court’s “arbitrary and capricious” review under Article 78), the First Department wrote:

It is well settled that “[j]udicial review of administrative determinations is limited to whether the determination was affected by an error of law or was arbitrary and capricious or an abuse of discretion… . Further, the Court of Appeals has held that an administrative agency’s determination is arbitrary and capricious when it ” neither adheres to its own prior precedent nor indicates its reason for reaching a different result on essentially the same facts'”… . “[A]n agency that deviates from its established rule must provide an explanation for the modification so that a reviewing court can determine whether the agency has changed its prior interpretation of the law for valid reasons, or has simply overlooked or ignored its prior decision'” … .

When a party mounts an attack upon a decision by DHCR as inconsistent with prior determinations, our task is to examine DHCR’s precedent in similar situations. In those cases where the DHCR has denied an exterior renovation (waterproofing and pointing) MCI rent increase outright in the first instance, this Court has upheld such determinations where the owner failed to prove that the work was necessary and comprehensive… . There is, however, no evidence that the DHCR has ever had a specific policy to deny a rent increase outright in the first instance in the type of situation, as here, where defects (water damage) relating to the improvement are found in a relatively small number of the building’s apartments. Nor does DHCR present any evidence of such policy.  Matter of 20 Fifth Ave, LLC, 2013 NY Slip Op 05434, 1st Dept 7-23-13

 

,

No Need for Proof of Agent’s Authority—Five-Day Notice Demanding Rent Valid

The Second Department determined a five-day notice demanding unpaid rent under a lease was not invalid because it was signed by a purported agent of the landlord without proof of the agent’s authority to act for the landlord.  In so finding, the Second Department distinguished a case relied upon by the tenant:

…[T]he Appellate Term properly distinguished this Court’s decision in Siegel v Kentucky Fried Chicken of Long Is. (108 AD2d at 221). … Siegel is limited to the “factual peculiarities” of the lease in that case. The lease in Siegel, unlike the lease in the case at bar, designated certain rights that were to be exercised by “the Landlord or Landlord’s agent[ ]” and designated the landlord’s attorney by name, while the three-day forfeiture notice that was the subject of that dispute was sent by another attorney, who was unknown to the tenant …. The relevant provision of the lease herein (hereinafter the notice provision), provided that the “Landlord shall give Tenant written notice of default stating the type of default,” and, unlike the lease in Siegel, did not expressly obligate [landlord] to act only personally or through an identified agent. Consequently, although the notice indicated that it was signed by [landlord’s] previously unidentified agent, the failure to include evidence of the agent’s authority to bind the landlord, which we found necessary in Siegel, did not render [landlord] noncompliant with the requirements of the notice provision (see RPAPL 711[2]), and did not render the notice invalid. Matter of QPII-143-45 Sanford Ave, LLC v Spinner, 2013 NY Slip Op 05083, 2nd Dept 7-3-13

 

,

Solid Waste Facility Operating Agreement Not a Lease—No Permissive Referendum Required

The Third Department determined that a Solid Waste Facility Operating Agreement between the Town of Colonie and Capital Region Landfills, Inc (CRL) was not a lease, and therefore a permissive referendum was not a pre-requisite to the agreement.  The Third Department wrote:

Town  Law  § 64 (2) provides that, upon adopting a resolution, a town board may “convey or lease real property in the name  of the town, which resolution shall be subject to a permissive referendum.” The petition and amended petition  allege  that, as  the  agreement  is “the  functional equivalent of a lease,” the Town violated Town Law § 64 (2) by adopting  the resolution and  entering into the agreement  without first conducting  a  permissive referendum … . * * *

In view of the significant restrictions on CRL’s authority and control of the landfill and the rights and powers retained by the Town, the agreement does not convey “absolute control and possession” to CRL and is not a lease as a matter of law….

Accordingly, petitioners’ claim  that a  permissive referendum was required by Town Law § 64 (2) is without merit. Matter of Connors v Town of Colonie, 516058, 3rd Dept 7-3-13

 

, , ,

Only Attorney Can Represent Voluntary Association—Appeals Dismissed

In dismissing the appeals, the First Department held that only an attorney can represent a voluntary association

Petitioner is a voluntary association comprised of rent-regulated tenants in the subject building. Patricia Pillette is a member of the association and appears pro se purportedly on behalf of the association. However, Pillette is not an attorney, and a voluntary association may only be represented by an attorney and not by one of its members who is not an attorney admitted to practice in the state of New York (see CPLR 321[a]). Accordingly, petitioner’s failure to appear by attorney requires dismissal of the appeals… .  Matter of Tenants Comm of 36 Gramercy Park v NYS Div of Hous & Community Renewal, 2013 NY Slip Op 04984, 1st Dept 7-2-13

 

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