You are here: / Landlord-Tenant
, , ,

FOR PURPOSES OF THE RELATION-BACK DOCTRINE, A LANDLORD AND A TENANT ARE NOT “UNITED IN INTEREST” (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the landlord-tenant relationship between the insured and the defendant building owner, Marion, did not constitute a “unity of interest” such that a negligence action against Marion could be commenced after the statute of limitations had run:

There are three conditions that must be satisfied for a claim asserted against a subsequent defendant such as Marion to relate back to claims asserted against another defendant: (1) both claims must arise out of the same conduct, occurrence, or transaction; (2) the new party must be “united in interest” with the original defendant, and by reason of that relationship can be charged with such notice of the institution of the lawsuit such that he will not be prejudiced in maintaining his defense on the merits; and (3) the new party knew or should have known that, but for a mistake by the plaintiff as to the identity of the proper parties, the action would have been brought against him as well … . * * *

… [A] landlord-tenant relationship, standing alone, does not give rise to vicarious liability or otherwise create unity of interest, which, as the Court of Appeals has recently reaffirmed, requires a situation in which the parties “stand or fall together and the judgment against one will similarly affect the other” … . Kingstone Ins. Co. v Marion Pharm. Inc., 2024 NY Slip Op 00805, First Dept 2-15-24

Practice Point: A landlord and a tenant are not united in interest for purposes of the relation-back doctrine and will not support adding a landlord to a complaint after the statute of limitations has run.

 

, , ,

A LETTER FROM AN ATTORNEY THREATENING LITIGATION CAN CONSTITUTE “RETALIATION” AGAINST THOSE WHO MAKE HOUSING DICSRIMINATION COMPLAINTS PURSUANT TO THE HUMAN RIGHTS LAW (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Singas, reversing the Appellate Division, determined a letter sent by an attorney for the landlord, Pine Ridge, to the respondent CityVision, a not-for-profit corporation which tests whether housing facilities engage in discrimination, constituted “retaliation” against those who make discrimination complaints. Here a CityVision employee, Renner, posed as a prospective tenant and allegedly was steered to a different apartment complex because she had children (discrimination based on familial status). CityVision’s complaint to the NYS Division of Human Rights (DHR) was dismissed. An attorney for Pine Ridge then sent a letter to CityVision which mentioned seeking damages. CityVision then filed a second complaint alleging the letter constituted “retaliation:” Although the matter was remitted to DHR because it was CityVision’s, not Pine Ridge;s, burden to show it was engaged in a protected activity, the Court of Appeals held that the threat of litigation can constitute “retaliation” in this context.

… [A] plaintiff bears the burden to establish a prima facie retaliation claim … . To meet that burden, the plaintiff must show that (1) they have “engaged in protected activity,” (2) the defendant “was aware that” the plaintiff “participated in” the protected activity, (3) the plaintiff suffered adverse action based upon the activity, and (4) “there is a causal connection between the protected activity and the adverse action” (id.). Only the first and third elements of CityVision’s retaliation claim are at issue here. ***

… [T]he record established that [the attorney’s] letter “shocked” CityVision’s employees and forced CityVision to expend resources and “scramble . . . to locate counsel” to address the threat. … [I]t was rational for DHR to conclude that the threatening letter caused CityVision to divert resources and could have dissuaded a person from pursuing a discrimination claim to protect their rights under the Human Rights Law. Indeed, a potential plaintiff might be chilled from filing a discrimination complaint when weighing the harm caused by the threat of retaliatory litigation, let alone the injury potentially occasioned by actual retaliatory litigation. DHR’s determination that the litigation threat amounted to adverse action in this case was rational and, thus, supported by substantial evidence. Matter of Clifton Park Apts., LLC v New York State Div. of Human Rights, 2024 NY Slip Op 00793, CtApp 2-15-24

Practice Point: Here a not-for-profit filed a complaint against a landlord alleging housing discrimination. After the complaint was dismissed, an attorney for the landlord sent a letter to the not-for-profit arguably threatening litigation. The letter constituted “retaliation” within the meaning of the Human Rights Law.

 

, , , ,

THE OWNER OF A COOPERATIVE BUILDING WAS PROPERLY FOUND LIABLE FOR FAILING TO REMEDIATE LEAD PAINT IN A SHAREHOLDER’S APARTMENT WHICH WAS SUBLET TO PLAINTIFF AND HER YOUNG DAUGHTER (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Oing, determined the owner of the building (Windsor) in which a cooperative shareholder, Sersch, sublet her cooperative apartment to plaintiff, had constructive knowledge plaintiff’s young daughter was living with plaintiff. Plaintiff’s daughter was diagnosed with lead poisoning and peeling lead paint was found in the apartment. Summary judgment finding Windsor liable for failing to remediate the lead paint problem was affirmed:

Windsor’s agents’ frequent and consistent interactions with plaintiff and the infant plaintiff were sufficient to provide constructive notice to Windsor … . Windsor failed to proffer an affidavit from any of the doormen stating that they did not know plaintiff and the infant plaintiff or were unaware of their residence. Under these circumstances, Windsor failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to the issue of constructive notice … . * * *

Windsor argues that section [NYC Administrative Code] 27-2056.15(c) exempts it from the duty to remediate and abate the lead paint in the apartment because Sersch “occupied” the apartment during plaintiffs’ subtenancy. Here, the terms of the sublease and the stipulation of settlement clearly indicate that the apartment was not “occupied” by Sersch during plaintiffs’ subtenancy. E.S. v Windsor Owners Corp., 2024 NY Slip Op 00267, First Dept 1-23-24

Practice Point; Here the owner of a cooperative building was deemed liable under New York City law for failure to remediate lead paint in a shareholder’s apartment which had been sublet to plaintiff and her young daughter.

 

,

PLAINTIFF FELL THROUGH THE DECK OF HER APRARTMENT; DEFENDANTS DID NOT SHOW A LACK OF ACTUAL OR CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE; THERE WAS NO CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY ON FILE; THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE DOCTRINE OF RES IPSA LOQUITUR APPLIED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant-landlord did not demonstrate a lack of actual or constructive notice of the condition of the deck which plaintiff fell through. In addition there was a question of fact whether the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applied:

Defendants testified that they inspected the deck before purchasing the property and also obtained the services of an unidentified inspector. However, they failed to produce the inspection report or any evidence of its contents, nor did they establish that the defect in the deck could not have been discovered upon a diligent inspection … . In light of defendants’ failure to show lack of actual or constructive notice, it is of no moment that they did not create the defective condition of the deck.

… Plaintiff’s expert engineer opined that the lack of a certificate of occupancy for the property, including the deck, should have put defendants on notice that the deck was not compliant with applicable building codes and that an inspection would have uncovered weakened plywood under the deck’s tile surface.

… The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur allows an inference of negligence to be drawn where (1) the event is of a type that does not normally occur in the absence of negligence, (2) it was caused by an instrumentality within the exclusive control of the defendants, and (3) plaintiff’s actions did not contribute in any way to the occurrence … . The first and third elements are established here because “a deck being put to its regular and intended use does not ordinarily collapse in the absence of negligence,” and there is no claim that any contributory negligence by plaintiff caused the collapse … . The second element of exclusive control may be established to the extent that plaintiff’s claim is based on defendants’ failure to maintain the deck since their acquisition of the property, rather than on the illegal construction of the deck at some earlier date … . Rosario v Cao, 2024 NY Slip Op 00154, First Dept 1-11-24

Practice Point: Here the deck of plaintiff’s apartment collapsed and she fell through it. There was no certificate of occupancy on file. The elements of res ipsa loquitur were present. Defendants therefore did not demonstrate a lack of actual or constructive notice of the condition of the deck.

 

, ,

THE GUARANTOR OF RENT DUE UNDER A LEASE FOR A BARBERSHOP FORCED TO CLOSE BY THE NYS GOVERNOR DURING COVID WAS RELIEVED OF LIABILITY FOR ONLY THE COVID-PERIOD COVERED BY NYC’S GUARANTY LAW (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the guarantor of a lease for a barbershop that was forced to close by the Governor of New York during COVID was relieved of liability for unpaid rent only for the period covered by NYC’s Guaranty Law:

As part of its declarations of intent and findings for the amendments extending the closing of the period of the Guaranty Law (first from September 30, 2020 to March 31, 2021, then from March 31, 2021 to June 30, 2021), the City Council made plain that the protections were “temporary,” and designed to provide businesses covered by the law with “a reasonable recovery period with a duration that is comparable to the period of time that [the] businesses were forced to close or operate with significant limitations on indoor occupancy” (New York City Local Laws 98/2020 and 50/2021, §§ 1[a][7], [9]).

In light of the language of the Guaranty Law and its legislative history, we conclude that the law “bars only those claims against guarantors seeking rent that came due within the [law’s] protection period” … . Tamar Equities Corp. v Signature Barbershop 33 Inc., 2024 NY Slip Op 00039, First Dept 1-4-24

Practice Point: New York City’s Guaranty Law relieves a guarantor of its liability for unpaid rent during a COVID-related business closure only for the “COVID” period described in the Guaranty Law.

 

,

DEFENDANT OUT-OF-POSSESSION LANDLORD DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT DID NOT HAVE RESPONSIBILITY FOR MAINTENANCE OF THE AREA WHERE PLAINTIFF FELL (PARKING LOT RAMP); THE LANDLORD’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the defendant out-of-possession landlord’s motion for summary judgment in this slip and fall case should not have been granted. The lease indicated the landlord had responsibility for maintenance of the ramp where plaintiff fell:

… “[A]n out-of-possession landlord is not liable for injuries that occur on its premises unless the landlord has retained control over the premises and has a duty imposed by statute or assumed by contract or a course of conduct” … .

Here, the defendant failed to establish its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the complaint on the ground that it was an out-of-possession landlord. The defendant’s submissions in support of its motion, including its written lease with Petco and a transcript of the deposition testimony of its principal, did not demonstrate that it was an out-of-possession landlord with respect to the subject ramp. The lease obligated the defendant to maintain all appurtenant exterior areas, including the parking area, and the defendant’s principal testified at his deposition that the ramp was part of the parking lot, which the defendant maintained … . Further, the defendant failed to eliminate triable issues of fact as to whether its allegedly negligent maintenance of the ramp was a proximate cause of the plaintiff’s accident  … . Thepenier v BGTWO Realty, LLC, 2023 NY Slip Op 06272, Second Dept 12-6-23

Practice Point: Whether an out-of-possession landlord can be liable for a slip and fall on the property depends on the terms of the lease. Here the landlord had the responsibility to maintain the parking lot ramp where plaintiff fell.

 

, ,

DEFENDANT DEMONSTRATED IT WAS AN OUT-OF-POSSESSION LANDLORD WHICH HAD RELINQUISHED CONTROL OVER THE AREA WHERE PLAINTIFF SLIPPED AND FELL ON A FLOOR ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN SLIPPERY BECAUSE IT HAD BEEN WAXED (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant Trinity demonstrated it was an out-of-possession landlord and the area where plaintiff slipped and fell was under the control of the lessee (LSSNY), plaintiff’s employer. Plaintiff alleged the floor was slippery because it had been waxed:

Defendant established prima facie that it was an out-of-possession landlord with no contractual obligation to maintain the demised premises. Defendant also established prima facie, that the accident was not caused by a structural or design defect that violated a specific statutory safety provision … . * * *

… [P]laintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether defendant possessed and controlled the leased premises for purposes of liability. Plaintiff’s averment that she saw defendant’s personnel freely using the location during the three years she worked at the premises was insufficient to demonstrate that there exists a triable issue of fact as to whether defendant relinquished complete control over the area before she fell … . Rodriguez v Trinity Evangelical Lutheran Church, 2023 NY Slip Op 05453, First Dept 10-26-23

Practice Point: Here the out-of-possession landlord was not liable for plaintiff’s fall on a slippery floor. The alleged defect was not structural and did not violate a statutory duty.

 

, , , ,

CASE REMITTED FOR A DETERMINATION OF THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE GUARANTY LAW WHICH WAS FOUND TO HAVE BARRED PLAINTIFF’S CLAIM FOR CERTAIN AMOUNTS (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department sent this case back for a determination whether guarantees at issue are constitutional:

In view of the recent decision in Melendez v City of New York (2023 WL 2746183, 2023 US Dist LEXIS 57050 [SD NY, Mar. 31, 2023, No. 20-CV-5301 (RA)] finding the guaranty law unconstitutional, we remand the constitutional question raised by the parties here so the parties can further develop the record in the trial court for the purpose of applying the Contracts Clause test for constitutionality … . Plaintiff is directed to serve notice on nonparty City of New York under CPLR 1012(b)(2) and file proof of service in order for the City to “intervene in support of its constitutionality” … .

Given the vitality of the constitutional question, we also reverse the dismissal of plaintiff’s claim for those amounts the court determined were barred by the guaranty law for a determination following the court’s resolution of the constitutional issue. 45-47-49 Eighth Ave. LLC v Conti, 2023 NY Slip Op 05180, First Dept 10-12-23

Practice Point: Supreme Court had held plaintiff’s claim to certain amounts was barred by the guaranty law. A federal court has held the guaranty law unconstitutional. This matter was sent back for a determination of the constitutional question.

 

, , ,

THE PETITIONERS BROUGHT A HYBRID ARTICLE 78/DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ACTION CHALLENGING A LOCAL LAW PROHIBITING SHORT-TERM RENTAL PROPERTIES; THE COURT NOTED THAT THE SUMMARY PROCEDURE AVAILABLE UNDER ARTICLE 78 SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN APPLIED TO THE DECLARATORY-JUDGMENT ACTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, noted that in a hybrid Article 78/declaratory judgment/damages action, the summary procedure under Article 78 does not apply to the declaratory judgment. In order to summarily dispose of the declaratory judgment/damages aspect of the action, a party must request it or the court must notify the parties. Here the petitioners, owners of short-term rental properties, challenged the local law prohibiting rental periods of less than 14 days:

“In a hybrid proceeding and action, separate procedural rules apply to those causes of action which are asserted pursuant to CPLR article 78, on the one hand, and those to recover damages and for declaratory relief, on the other hand. The Supreme Court may not employ the summary procedure applicable to a CPLR article 78 cause of action to dispose of causes of action to recover damages or seeking a declaratory judgment” … . “[W]here no party makes a request for a summary determination of the causes of action which seek to recover damages or declaratory relief, it is error for the Supreme Court to summarily dispose of those causes of action”… .

Here, the record contains no indication that the Supreme Court gave notice to the parties that it was contemplating the summary dismissal of the declaratory judgment causes of action, or that the respondents/defendants had made an application for such relief. Therefore, the court erred in summarily disposing the causes of action for declaratory relief … . Matter of Jellyfish Props., LLC v Incorporated Vil. of Greenport, 2023 NY Slip Op 05136, Second Dept 10-11-23

Practice Point: In a hybrid Article 78/declaratory judgment action, the summary procedure available under Article 78 cannot be used to dispose of the declaratory judgment action unless a party requests it or the court so notifies the parties.

 

,

THE DATE BY WHICH AN OPTION TO RENEW A LEASE IS TO BE EXERCISED CAN BE WAIVED BY THE ACCEPTANCE OF AN UNTIMELY ELECTION TO RENEW; THE REQUEST FOR A NEW LEASE WITH THE SAME MATERIAL TERMS DOES NOT AFFECT THE VALIDITY OF THE ELECTION TO RENEW (THIRD DEPT).

​The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined there were questions of fact about whether defendant tenant had exercised its option to renew the lease. The court noted that the date by which an option to renew must be exercised is for the benefit of the landlord and therefore can be waived by the landlord:

… [W]e agree with plaintiff that, to the extent that Supreme Court concluded that defendant could not have exercised the option to renew because the option lapsed after November 30, 2018, that finding was erroneous. Although an “optionee must exercise the option in accordance with its terms within the time and in the manner specified in the option” … , the relevant case law establishes that the notice provision associated with the option was “solely for plaintiff’s benefit as the landlord and may be waived, even in the absence of a written waiver” … . Here, plaintiff’s assertion that he confirmed and accepted defendant’s untimely election constitutes such waiver.

… [W]here an option is exercised and all of the essential and material terms of the parties’ agreement are provided for in the original lease, the fact that a party contemplates “the subsequent execution of a more formal writing [that was] not done will not impair [the] effectiveness” of the election … . Nor would plaintiff’s inquiry as to whether defendant would like a future option to renew render defendant’s exercise of the option conditional … .

The core question is whether defendant exercised its option to renew, as a matter of law. Moore v Schuler-Haas Elec. Corp., 2023 NY Slip Op 03739, Third Dept 7-6-23

Practice Point: The date by which an option to renew a leased is to be exercised is for the benefit of the landlord and therefore can be waived by the acceptance of an untimely election. The request for a new lease with the same material terms does not invalidate the election to renew.

 

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