Ram v. 64th Street-Third Ave. Associates, LLC

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ram v. 64th Street-Third Ave. Associates, LLC

61 A.D.3d 596, 878 N.Y.S.2d 27

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

DecidedApril 28, 2009

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 61 A.D.3d 596 (Ram v. 64th Street-Third Ave. Associates, LLC) 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

Ram v. 64th Street-Third Ave. Associates, LLC, 61 A.D.3d 596, 878 N.Y.S.2d 27 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

[597]*597Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard F. Braun, J.), entered November 6, 2008, which granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the cause of action for negligence, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff was injured when, attempting to turn off a ceiling-mounted box fan, he placed his right hand within the area of the revolving blades. The fan was located in a parking garage that was operated by plaintiffs employer under a lease with defendant, the building’s owner. The motion court correctly granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment on the ground that defendant was an out-of-possession landlord that could not be held liable for any dangers posed by the fan where its lease with plaintiffs employer required the latter to keep all fixtures in good working order and to make any nonstructural repairs at its own expense (see generally Reyes v Morton Williams Associated Supermarkets, Inc., 50 AD3d 496, 497 [2008] [given right to reenter, liability must be based on a “significant structural or design defect that is contrary to a specific statutory safety provision”]; cf. Javier v Ludin, 293 AD2d 448 [2002] [dangerous fluorescent light fixture hanging from ceiling not a significant structural defect]). Plaintiffs reliance on Administrative Code of the City of NY §§ 27-756 and 27-772, which relate to the installation and operation of HVAC systems, and New York City Building Code Reference Standard RS-13 §§ 2-2.3.1, 2-2.3.3 and 2-3.7.3 (b) (Administrative Code, tit 27, ch 1, Appendix), which relate to the fans and air inlets of HVAC systems, is misplaced; these provisions do not apply given no evidence that the fan was ducted or connected to the building’s air distribution system (see Reference Standard RS-13 § 1.5, defining, inter alia, “air distribution system” and “air inlet”). Administrative Code §§ 27-127 and 27-128 are general safety provisions that cannot support a claim of liability against an out-of-possession landlord based on a significant structural defect (Boateng v Four Plus Corp., 22 AD3d 323, 324 [2005]; Reddy v 369 Lexington Ave. Co., L.P., 31 AD3d 732, 733 [2006]). We have considered plaintiffs other arguments and find them unavailing. Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P, Andrias, Nardelli, Catterson and DeGrasse, JJ.

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

[597]*597Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard F. Braun, J.), entered November 6, 2008, which granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the cause of action for negligence, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff was injured when, attempting to turn off a ceiling-mounted box fan, he placed his right hand within the area of the revolving blades. The fan was located in a parking garage that was operated by plaintiffs employer under a lease with defendant, the building’s owner. The motion court correctly granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment on the ground that defendant was an out-of-possession landlord that could not be held liable for any dangers posed by the fan where its lease with plaintiffs employer required the latter to keep all fixtures in good working order and to make any nonstructural repairs at its own expense (see generally Reyes v Morton Williams Associated Supermarkets, Inc., 50 AD3d 496, 497 [2008] [given right to reenter, liability must be based on a “significant structural or design defect that is contrary to a specific statutory safety provision”]; cf. Javier v Ludin, 293 AD2d 448 [2002] [dangerous fluorescent light fixture hanging from ceiling not a significant structural defect]). Plaintiffs reliance on Administrative Code of the City of NY §§ 27-756 and 27-772, which relate to the installation and operation of HVAC systems, and New York City Building Code Reference Standard RS-13 §§ 2-2.3.1, 2-2.3.3 and 2-3.7.3 (b) (Administrative Code, tit 27, ch 1, Appendix), which relate to the fans and air inlets of HVAC systems, is misplaced; these provisions do not apply given no evidence that the fan was ducted or connected to the building’s air distribution system (see Reference Standard RS-13 § 1.5, defining, inter alia, “air distribution system” and “air inlet”). Administrative Code §§ 27-127 and 27-128 are general safety provisions that cannot support a claim of liability against an out-of-possession landlord based on a significant structural defect (Boateng v Four Plus Corp., 22 AD3d 323, 324 [2005]; Reddy v 369 Lexington Ave. Co., L.P., 31 AD3d 732, 733 [2006]). We have considered plaintiffs other arguments and find them unavailing. Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P, Andrias, Nardelli, Catterson and DeGrasse, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

61 A.D.3d 596, 878 N.Y.S.2d 27, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ram-v-64th-street-third-ave-associates-llc-nyappdiv-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack