DAWN KELLMAN, RESPONDENT, v. 45 TIEMANN ASSOCIATES, INC., APPELLANT, ET AL.,
DEFENDANTS.
87 N.Y.2d 871, 662 N.E.2d 255, 638 N.Y.S.2d 937
December 21, 1995
1 No. 301(1995 NY Int. 289)
Decided December 21, 1995
_________________________________________________________________
This memorandum is uncorrected and subject to revision before
publication in the New York Reports.
Elliot L. Evans, for Appellant.
Brian J. Shoot, for Respondent.
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.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Order affirmed, with costs, and certified question answered in the
affirmative, in a memorandum. Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Simons,
Titone, Bellacosa, Smith, Levine and Ciparick concur.
SNIPPETS:
This memorandum is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the New York
Elliot L. Evans, for Appellant.
Brian J. Shoot, for Respondent.
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs, and the certified
An owner of land has a duty under the common law to maintain its premises "in a reasonably
Contrary to defendant landlord's contentions, its alleged compliance with the applicable
Corp., 81 NY2d 982).
The Appellate Division correctly concluded that the record presents triable issues of fact,
Specifically, questions are presented whether it was foreseeable that tenants would use the
Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Simons, Titone, Bellacosa, Smith, Levine and Ciparick concur.
|
