Kellman v. 45 Tiemann Associates, Inc.

New York Court of Appeals

Kellman v. 45 Tiemann Associates, Inc.

662 N.E.2d 255, 87 N.Y.2d 871, 638 N.Y.S.2d 937, 1995 N.Y. LEXIS 4743

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedDecember 21, 1995

StatusPublished

Cited by107 cases

This text of 662 N.E.2d 255 (Kellman v. 45 Tiemann Associates, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Kellman v. 45 Tiemann Associates, Inc., 662 N.E.2d 255, 87 N.Y.2d 871, 638 N.Y.S.2d 937, 1995 N.Y. LEXIS 4743 (N.Y. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs, and the certified question answered in the affirmative.

An owner of land has a duty under the common law to maintain its premises "in a reasonably safe condition in view of all the circumstances, including the likelihood of injury to others, the seriousness of the injury, and the burden of avoiding the risk” (see, Basso v Miller, 40 NY2d 233, 241). Contrary to defendant landlord’s contentions, its alleged compliance with the applicable statutes and regulations is not dispositive of the question whether it satisfied its duties under the common law (see, Lesocovich v 180 Madison Ave. Corp., 81 NY2d 982).

The Appellate Division correctly concluded that the record presents triable issues of fact, regardless of whether the building is subject to or in compliance with section 53 of the Multiple Dwelling Law or section 27-380 of the Administrative Code of the City of New York. Specifically, questions are presented (1) whether it was foreseeable that tenants would use the fire escape landings to clean windows or for other purposes, and, if so, (2) whether defendant landlord exercised reasonable care to protect tenants from injuring themselves by falling through the unguarded hatchways in fire escape landings.

Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Simons, Titone, Bellacosa, Smith, Levine and Ciparick concur in memorandum.

Order affirmed, etc.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs, and the certified question answered in the affirmative.

An owner of land has a duty under the common law to maintain its premises "in a reasonably safe condition in view of all the circumstances, including the likelihood of injury to others, the seriousness of the injury, and the burden of avoiding the risk” (see, Basso v Miller, 40 NY2d 233, 241). Contrary to defendant landlord’s contentions, its alleged compliance with the applicable statutes and regulations is not dispositive of the question whether it satisfied its duties under the common law (see, Lesocovich v 180 Madison Ave. Corp., 81 NY2d 982).

The Appellate Division correctly concluded that the record presents triable issues of fact, regardless of whether the building is subject to or in compliance with section 53 of the Multiple Dwelling Law or section 27-380 of the Administrative Code of the City of New York. Specifically, questions are presented (1) whether it was foreseeable that tenants would use the fire escape landings to clean windows or for other purposes, and, if so, (2) whether defendant landlord exercised reasonable care to protect tenants from injuring themselves by falling through the unguarded hatchways in fire escape landings.

Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Simons, Titone, Bellacosa, Smith, Levine and Ciparick concur in memorandum.

Order affirmed, etc.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

662 N.E.2d 255, 87 N.Y.2d 871, 638 N.Y.S.2d 937, 1995 N.Y. LEXIS 4743, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kellman-v-45-tiemann-associates-inc-ny-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack