Landlord-Tenant – Page 45 – New York Appellate Digest

Civil Procedure, Landlord-Tenant, Negligence

Jury Verdict Finding No Negligence Reversed on Appeal/Article 16 Defenses Re: Negligence of Non-Party Allowed

A mechanic working in the basement of a two-family house left a trap door, which was directly outside the side door of plaintiff’s apartment, open. Plaintiff fell through the open trap door. In setting aside the jury verdict finding the mechanic was not negligent, the Second Department wrote:

A jury verdict should not be set aside as contrary to the weight of the evidence unless the jury could not have reached the verdict by any fair interpretation of the evidence … . In exercising our authority to review the weight of the evidence …, we find that the jury’s verdict was contrary to the weight of the evidence. “Negligence involves the failure to exercise the degree of care that a reasonably prudent person would exercise in the same circumstances” …. Applying this standard, we conclude that the jury’s determination that the defendant was not negligent was not based on a fair interpretation of the evidence, since a reasonable person should have been aware that leaving the trapdoor open created an unsafe condition …. Accordingly, we reverse the amended judgment, reinstate the complaint, and remit the matter … for a new trial.

The Second Department also made the following findings, pursuant to CPLR article 16, about defenses based upon the liability of the non-party out-of-possession landlord:

…[T]he Supreme Court did not err in denying that branch of the plaintiff’s motion which was to preclude the defendant from offering evidence as to the liability of a nonparty, the out-of-possession landlord, for the purpose of limiting the defendant’s liability for noneconomic damages pursuant to CPLR article 16. Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, a defendant is not required to plead that defense as an affirmative defense (see CPLR 1601[1]…).

…[T]he Supreme Court properly denied the plaintiff’s motion to dismiss the defendant’s affirmative defense pursuant to CPLR article 16, as the defendant presented evidence demonstrating that a question of fact existed as to the negligence of the nonparty landlord (see CPLR 1603…). Cooper v Burt’s Reliable, Inc, 2013 NY Slip Op 02529, 2012-00098, Index No 6053/07, 2nd Dept 4-17-13

April 17, 2013

Appeals, Landlord-Tenant, Municipal Law

Resident in Hotel Under Contract to Provide Rooms to Homeless Persons Entitled to Rent Stabilization Protection

In finding that the respondent (Pitt) was a “permanent tenant” of a hotel which rented rooms to homeless persons under an agreement with the NYC Human Resources Administration (thereby entitling the respondent to the protections of the Rent Stabilization Code), the First Department explained the “exception to mootness” doctrine:”

As a threshold matter, we find that this appeal is not rendered moot by the fact that Pitt voluntarily vacated the premises before the appeal was perfected. Although, as a general principle, courts are precluded from considering questions which have become moot by a change in circumstances, an exception to the mootness doctrine exists in situations that present the following: “(1) a likelihood of repetition, either between the parties or among other members of the public; (2) a phenomenon typically evading review; and (3) a showing of significant or important questions not previously passed on, i.e., substantial and novel issues” … . This matter presents an issue of substantial public interest that is likely to recur and evade review. Specifically, this Court must address the question of what constitutes a legal tenancy under the Rent Stabilization Code, and what rights are vested in a person occupying premises under the contract between a landlord and a social service agency. This is an issue that affects a large number of New Yorkers who declare permanent tenancy in a SRO [single room occupancy facility]. Thus, it presents an exception to the mootness doctrine … . Branic Intl Realty Corp v Pitt, 2013 NY Slip Op 02522, 9453 & 57024/10, 363, 1st Dept, 4-16-13

April 16, 2013

Landlord-Tenant, Municipal Law

Son Entitled to Remain in Deceased Mother’s Apartment

In annulling the ruling that petitioner (Carlos) was not entitled to “remaining family member (RFM)” status for the succession of his deceased mother’s apartment, the First Department wrote:

We annul NYCHA’s [New York Housing Authority’s] determination on the ground that it is not supported by substantial evidence. While the agency correctly asserts that Carlos’s RFM status is jeopardized by the fact that he never received written permission to be added to his mother’s lease while she was alive, the record is plain that Amparo [Carlos’ mother] took every step to have her son added to her lease, as required by 24 CFR 966.4(a)(1)(v), and it is undisputed that NYCHA violated a number of its own internal rules by determining that Carlos’s 1996 conviction precluded him from joining Amparo’s tenancy until May of 2008, without notifying Amparo or Carlos, and without giving them the opportunity to present evidence of Carlos’s rehabilitation. … .

…[W]hile estoppel is not available against a government agency engaging in the exercise of its governmental functions …, we have held that NYCHA’s knowledge that a tenant was living in an apartment for a substantial period of time can be an important component of the determination of a subsequent RFM application … . In re Gutierrez v Rhea, et al, 2013 NY Slip Op 02453, 8494 402789/10, 1st Dept, 4-11-13

April 11, 2013

Contract Law, Landlord-Tenant

Failure to Comply With Lease Option Can Be Forgiven if Certain Criteria Met

The Second Department explained that the failure to strictly comply with the terms of a lease option (here involving notice to the landlord of the exercise of an option to terminate the lease) can be forgiven if certain criteria are met:

An optionee must exercise the option in accordance with its terms, within the time and in the manner specified in the option …. The defendant failed to strictly comply with the language in the option in purporting to exercise it. However, equity will intervene to relieve an optionee of the consequences of a failure to exercise an option in accordance with its terms where (1) the optionee’s failure to properly exercise the option resulted from an honest mistake or inadvertence, (2) refusal to recognize the exercise of the option would result in a substantial forfeiture by the optionee, and (3) the optionor would not suffer prejudice as a result … . Pacific Dean Realty, LLC v Specific St, LLC, 2013 NY Slip Op 02385, 2011-10324, Index No 21508/10, 2nd Dept 4-10-13

April 10, 2013

Landlord-Tenant, Negligence, Toxic Torts

Question of Fact Raised About Owner’s Knowledge of Presence of Lead Paint

The Fourth Department determined a question of fact had been raised about whether a defendant/owner of the apartment had constructive notice of the presence of lead paint:

The deposition testimony of [defendant] was equivocal and inconsistent with respect to whether he had constructive notice of a dangerous lead paint condition on his property. For instance, Weston alternately testified that there “could have been” peeling or chipping paint, that he did not recall whether there was peeling or chipping paint, and that he had “no problem” with peeling or chipping paint. [Defendant] similarly contradicted himself as to whether he knew that a child lived in the apartment. Regarding the other [Chapman v Silber (97 NY2d 9)] factors, [defendant] testified that he believed that he had a right to re-enter the apartment to make repairs, and he admitted that he knew by 1990 that lead was bad for children and that it could be found in houses like his. In short, [defendant’s] testimony … raised triable issues of fact regarding constructive notice … . Watson v Priore, et al, 293, CA 12-00977, 4th Dept. 3-22-13

March 22, 2013

Insurance Law, Landlord-Tenant, Negligence, Toxic Torts

Single Policy Limit Held to Apply to Successive Tenants in Lead-Paint-Tainted Apartment.

In a full-fledged opinion by Justice Smith, the Fourth Department discussed the liability-limits of an insurance carrier for injuries caused to children by lead paint in the insured apartment. The policy, which had a $500,000 limit, included the following sentence: “All bodily injury and property damage resulting from one accidental loss or from continuous or repeated exposure to the same general conditions is considered the result of one accidental loss.” Children in one family who lived in the apartment suffered injury from lead paint and the carrier paid out $350,000. Subsequently children in another family who moved into the same apartment suffered injury from lead paint. The question before the Court was whether the liability to the second family was capped at $150,000 because the total liability of the carrier could not exceed $500,000, or whether the injury to the second family triggered another $500,000 in policy coverage. The Fourth Department determined the carrier was liable for a total of $500,000 for the injuries to both families and the second family could recover no more than $150,000. Nesmith, et al v Allstate Insurance Company, 1252, CA 12-00182 Fourth Dept. 2-1-13

February 1, 2013