Dominic Williams v SI 1688 Realty, LLC, et al.
Attorneys and Parties
Brief Summary
Residential landlord premises liability for injuries caused by a bathroom ceiling collapse after a leak, including whether liability could be established through ordinary negligence, res ipsa loquitur, and negligence per se under Multiple Dwelling Law § 78(1) [statute imposing a general duty to keep multiple dwellings in good repair].
The Supreme Court, Kings County, granted the plaintiff summary judgment on liability and dismissed the defendants' first, third, fourth, and seventh affirmative defenses alleging comparative negligence.
The Appellate Division reversed the portions of the order that granted summary judgment based on res ipsa loquitur and negligence per se under Multiple Dwelling Law § 78(1), and also reversed the dismissal of the comparative-negligence affirmative defenses. It otherwise affirmed summary judgment for the plaintiff on ordinary negligence based on the defendants' actual notice of the leak and failure to remedy it.
The record established as a matter of law that the defendants had actual notice of the leaking condition and failed to fix it. But Multiple Dwelling Law § 78(1) supports only a general maintenance duty, not negligence per se, and the plaintiff failed to show the defendants had exclusive control over the ceiling and upstairs bathtub as required for res ipsa loquitur. The plaintiff also did not eliminate triable issues of comparative fault because she entered the bathroom to scrub the tub despite being concerned that the ceiling might imminently collapse.
Background
The plaintiff lived in a three-family dwelling owned and managed by the defendants. She alleged that while cleaning her bathtub, a portion of her bathroom ceiling fell on her and caused personal injuries. She sued the defendants, claiming negligence based on their failure to address a leak, and also invoked res ipsa loquitur and negligence per se under Multiple Dwelling Law § 78(1) [statute imposing a general duty to keep multiple dwellings in good repair].
Lower Court Decision
The Supreme Court granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on liability and dismissed the defendants' first, third, fourth, and seventh affirmative defenses sounding in comparative negligence.
Appellate Division Reversal
The Appellate Division modified the order by denying summary judgment on the portions of the negligence claim based on res ipsa loquitur and negligence per se under Multiple Dwelling Law § 78(1), and by reinstating the defendants' comparative-negligence affirmative defenses. The court affirmed the grant of summary judgment only on the ordinary negligence theory that the defendants had actual notice of the leak and failed to remedy it before the ceiling collapsed.
Legal Significance
This decision reinforces that in New York ceiling-collapse cases involving leaks, a plaintiff may obtain summary judgment on ordinary negligence by showing the landlord had actual or constructive notice of the leak and failed to repair it. It also confirms that Multiple Dwelling Law § 78(1) does not create negligence per se because it states only a general duty, and that res ipsa loquitur cannot support summary judgment without proof of exclusive control over the instrumentality. The case further highlights that even where landlord negligence is established, comparative negligence defenses may survive if the plaintiff knowingly proceeded in the face of an apparent danger.
A landlord's actual notice of a leak can establish liability for a resulting ceiling collapse, but a plaintiff cannot rely on Multiple Dwelling Law § 78(1) for negligence per se, cannot invoke res ipsa loquitur without showing exclusive control, and must still overcome any factual issues about her own comparative fault.