Washington-Fraser v. Industrial Home for the Blind
2018 NY Slip Op 5620 (2018)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An out-of-possession landlord can be held liable for injuries occurring on its premises if it retains control over the premises, has a contractual or statutory obligation to repair or maintain, or assumes such a duty through a course of conduct, and either created the defective condition or had actual or constructive notice of it.
Facts:
- Rosemary Washington-Fraser entered a building through an exterior door.
- Rosemary Washington-Fraser slipped and fell on water located on an interior staircase, sustaining personal injuries.
- Rosemary Washington-Fraser claimed the building owner, Industrial Home for the Blind, was negligent for failing to maintain and repair the exterior door, doorway, and stairwell, which were allegedly defective.
- Rosemary Washington-Fraser asserted that the defective conditions allowed rainwater to enter through the doorway and collect on the stairs, making them slippery.
- Industrial Home for the Blind, as the building owner, had a lease with a nonparty tenant.
- The lease obligated Industrial Home for the Blind to maintain the interior and exterior public portions of the building and reserved its right to re-enter for inspection and repairs.
- The lease required the nonparty tenant to make nonstructural repairs.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiff Rosemary Washington-Fraser commenced an action to recover damages for personal injuries against the defendant, Industrial Home for the Blind, in the Supreme Court, Kings County (the trial court).
- After the completion of discovery, the defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing it was an out-of-possession landlord not responsible for the conditions causing the accident.
- The Supreme Court, Kings County, denied the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
- The defendant, Industrial Home for the Blind, appealed the trial court's order to the Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Did the defendant, an out-of-possession landlord, establish a prima facie case for summary judgment by demonstrating it lacked a contractual duty to maintain the allegedly defective premises or lacked actual or constructive notice of the hazardous condition?
Opinions:
Majority - DILLON, J.P.
No, the defendant did not establish a prima facie case for summary judgment. The court affirmed the denial of the defendant's motion because the Industrial Home for the Blind failed to demonstrate, prima facie, that it was an out-of-possession landlord without a contractual duty under the lease to maintain the exterior door, doorway, and stairwell or to repair the alleged defects. Furthermore, the defendant failed to demonstrate, prima facie, that it did not create the allegedly defective conditions or that it lacked actual or constructive notice of them. Since the defendant did not meet its initial burden for summary judgment, the court did not need to assess the sufficiency of the plaintiff's opposition papers.
Analysis:
This case reinforces the high burden on a party moving for summary judgment, especially for out-of-possession landlords. It highlights that landlords cannot simply assert an out-of-possession status to escape liability without conclusively demonstrating they had no contractual obligation to maintain relevant areas and no notice of defects. This ruling serves as a reminder that lease provisions retaining control or imposing maintenance duties are crucial in determining landlord liability and that the moving party must affirmatively negate all elements of potential liability.
