O'Grady v. New York City Housing Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

O'Grady v. New York City Housing Authority

259 A.D.2d 442, 687 N.Y.S.2d 352, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3236

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedMarch 30, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 259 A.D.2d 442 (O'Grady v. New York City Housing Authority) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

O'Grady v. New York City Housing Authority, 259 A.D.2d 442, 687 N.Y.S.2d 352, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3236 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard Lowe, III, J.), entered March 5, 1998, which granted defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the motion denied and the complaint reinstated.

Plaintiff firefighter was injured when, while ascending stairs in response to an alarm at defendant’s Bronx residential premises, he slipped on liquid leaking from an open bag of garbage. He sued for damages under both statutory and common-law theories of negligence.

General Municipal Law § 205-a creates a cause of action for firefighters where injury results from the negligent failure to comply with local ordinances, inter alia. Alleged here are violations of various provisions of title 27 of the Administrative Code of the City of New York, to wit: section 27-127 (general requirement to maintain buildings and their parts in a safe condition), section 27-128 (owner responsibility for safe maintenance of a building and its facilities), and section 27-2011 (requirement of an owner to maintain the public parts of a building in a clean and sanitary condition). Notice of the condition (Lusenskas v Axelrod, 183 AD2d 244, appeal dismissed 81 NY2d 300) can be inferred from evidence in the record of defendant’s continuing battle with tenants who leave garbage in the common areas of the building (see, O’Connell v Kavanagh, 231 AD2d 29).

While a common-law claim requires a greater threshold of [443]*443notice of the hazardous condition, there was ample evidence in the record that tenants would leave garbage in bags in the common areas, and that vagrants who slept in those hallways and stairwells at night would break open the bags in search of usable items. The ongoing pattern of such activity, along with the established routine of cleaning up and warning tenants, constituted constructive notice to defendant of this recurrent condition (Megally v 440 W. 34th St. Co., 246 AD2d 346; O’Connor-Miele v Barhite & Holzinger, 234 AD2d 106; Alvarez v Mendik Realty Plaza, 176 AD2d 557, lv denied 79 NY2d 756).

Plaintiffs have established viable claims under both statutory and common-law theories of recovery. Concur — Nardelli, J. P., Wallach, Lerner and Rubin, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard Lowe, III, J.), entered March 5, 1998, which granted defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the motion denied and the complaint reinstated.

Plaintiff firefighter was injured when, while ascending stairs in response to an alarm at defendant’s Bronx residential premises, he slipped on liquid leaking from an open bag of garbage. He sued for damages under both statutory and common-law theories of negligence.

General Municipal Law § 205-a creates a cause of action for firefighters where injury results from the negligent failure to comply with local ordinances, inter alia. Alleged here are violations of various provisions of title 27 of the Administrative Code of the City of New York, to wit: section 27-127 (general requirement to maintain buildings and their parts in a safe condition), section 27-128 (owner responsibility for safe maintenance of a building and its facilities), and section 27-2011 (requirement of an owner to maintain the public parts of a building in a clean and sanitary condition). Notice of the condition (Lusenskas v Axelrod, 183 AD2d 244, appeal dismissed 81 NY2d 300) can be inferred from evidence in the record of defendant’s continuing battle with tenants who leave garbage in the common areas of the building (see, O’Connell v Kavanagh, 231 AD2d 29).

While a common-law claim requires a greater threshold of [443]*443notice of the hazardous condition, there was ample evidence in the record that tenants would leave garbage in bags in the common areas, and that vagrants who slept in those hallways and stairwells at night would break open the bags in search of usable items. The ongoing pattern of such activity, along with the established routine of cleaning up and warning tenants, constituted constructive notice to defendant of this recurrent condition (Megally v 440 W. 34th St. Co., 246 AD2d 346; O’Connor-Miele v Barhite & Holzinger, 234 AD2d 106; Alvarez v Mendik Realty Plaza, 176 AD2d 557, lv denied 79 NY2d 756).

Plaintiffs have established viable claims under both statutory and common-law theories of recovery. Concur — Nardelli, J. P., Wallach, Lerner and Rubin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

259 A.D.2d 442, 687 N.Y.S.2d 352, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3236, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ogrady-v-new-york-city-housing-authority-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack