Boateng v. Four Plus Corporation, 6757.
Decision Date | 13 October 2005 |
Docket Number | 6757. |
Citation | 22 A.D.3d 323,802 N.Y.S.2d 418,2005 NY Slip Op 07601 |
Parties | SAMUEL BOATENG, Respondent, v. FOUR PLUS CORPORATION et al., Appellants. |
Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
The uncontradicted facts in the record show that the defendants Four Plus Corporation and Chase Manhattan Bank, N.A., were out-of-possession landlords who retained no more than a right of reentry to inspect and make repairs. Full responsibility for maintenance and repair of the leased premises had, under the governing lease, been placed with the tenant. In light of the landlords' out-of possession status, plaintiff, to raise an issue of fact as to whether the landlords had constructive notice of and were responsible for remediating the alleged hazard, was required to show that the purported hazard constituted a structural or design defect that violated a specific statutory provision (see Pavon v. Rudin, 254 AD2d 143, 146-147 [1998]). The record evidence, including photographs and deposition testimony, established that the crumbling cement on the garage ceiling, alleged to have caused plaintiff's harm, had no structural or design function, but was merely coating for steel beams. Plaintiff's assertion that a potential engineer witness would testify that the crumbling cement violated general safety provisions of the New York City Building Code (i.e., Administrative Code of City of NY §§ 27-127, 27-128) was insufficient to forestall summary judgment since, inter alia, no specific statutory violation was identified (see Dixon v. Nur-Hom Realty Corp., 254 AD2d 66, 67 [1998]).
Defendant 5711 Parking Corporation's (5711) claim of entitlement to summary judgment based on its Workers' Compensation Law defense was properly rejected. Based on the record as it now stands, we cannot determine as a matter of law that 5711 is free of liability based on the Workers' Compensation Law.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Bautista v. 85TH Columbus Corp.
...115 [2d Dept.2006] [sections imposing general obligation do not “offer an independent basis of liability”]; Boateng v. Four Plus Corp., 22 A.D.3d 323, 324, 802 N.Y.S.2d 418 [1st Dept.2005] [plaintiffs had failed to identify a structural or design defect that violated a specific statutory pr......
-
Kittay v. Moskowitz
...). Former Administrative Code of City of N.Y. §§ 27–127 and 27–128 were general safety provisions ( see Boateng v. Four Plus Corp., 22 A.D.3d 323, 802 N.Y.S.2d 418 [2005] ). Administrative Code § 27–375(f), which requires, inter alia, handrails on “interior stairs,” is not applicable, becau......
-
Familia v. 133 Dyckman St. LLC
...are not sufficient proof that an employer is free of liability under the Workers' Compensation Law (Boateng v. Four Plus Corp., 22 A.D. 3d 323, 802 N.Y.S. 2d 418 [1st Dept., 2005]). Plaintiff in opposition provides a copy of the accident report which bears only the MPG logo (Opp. Exh. E). P......
-
Aguilar v. Boyd
...landlord where the Appellate Division reversed the lower court and dismissed the complaint. BOYD cited Boateng v. Four Plus Corp., 22 A.D.3d 323 (1st Dep't, 2005) but that matter concerned allegations of a statutory violation that were not substantiated and the out of possession landlords w......