Worth Distributors, Inc. v. Latham

• Decision Date: 14 June 1983
• Parties: , 451 N.E.2d 193 WORTH DISTRIBUTORS, INC., Respondent, v. Gertrude G. LATHAM et al., Appellants, et al., Defendants. (And a Third-Party Action.) (And 42 Other Actions.)
• Court: New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

Page 435

464 N.Y.S.2d 435

59 N.Y.2d 231, 451 N.E.2d 193

WORTH DISTRIBUTORS, INC., Respondent, v. Gertrude G. LATHAM et al., Appellants, et al., Defendants.

(And a Third-Party Action.)

(And 42 Other Actions.)

Court of Appeals of New York.

June 14, 1983.

Sheldon D. Camhy, Milton S. Gould and Willis H. Stephens, Jr., New York City, for Matilda Edwards, appellant.

William H. Morris and Gerald P. McMorrow, Jericho, for Gertrude G. Latham, appellant.

Frederick A.O. Schwarz, Jr., Corp. Counsel, New York City (Stephen J. McGrath and Leonard Koerner, Asst. Corp. Counsels, New York City, of counsel), for City of New York, appellant.

Stephen W. O'Leary, Jamaica, for Worth Distributors, Inc., respondent.

William C. Viets and Gary Alexander Stahl, New York City, for Mercer Arts Center, Inc., plaintiff-respondent.

Edgar T. Schleider, New York City, for other plaintiffs-respondents.

OPINION OF THE COURT

PER CURIAM.

This case arose out of the collapse of a portion of the Broadway Central Hotel building in lower Manhattan on August 3, 1973. Four persons were killed, many others were injured, and a number of businesses suffered extensive property damage.

Forty-three actions to recover for wrongful death, personal injury, and property damage were consolidated. After a nonjury trial, Supreme Court held that the owners of the building were 25% liable, the net lessee was 45% liable, and the City of New York was 30% liable. The city was held to be entitled to indemnification by the owners, and its liability for property damage limited to the value of the property that could have been removed from the building had the city taken prompt action. The court found the city liable because of its department of buildings' failure to ensure that the building's dangerous condition was remedied before it collapsed. The Appellate Division, 88 A.D.2d 814, 454 N.Y.S.2d 79, modified by granting the city judgment on its indemnification cross claim against the net lessee.

The city should not have been held liable. As this court recently reaffirmed, "it has long been the rule in this State that, in the absence of some special relationship creating a duty to exercise care for the benefit of particular individuals, liability may not be imposed on a municipality for failure to enforce a statute or regulation" (O'Connor v. City of New York, 58 N.Y.2d 184, 192, 460 N.Y.S.2d 485, 447 N.E.2d 33). Here the city building department failed to enforce provisions of the city's Administrative Code relating to building safety, even though its employees knew of the dangerous structural conditions in the building. These regulations were designed to protect the general public, however, and no special relationship has been shown that would establish a municipal duty to the instant plaintiffs in particular. Thus, the complaints should be dismissed as against the City of New York, and apportionment of liability among the remaining defendants redetermined accordingly.

Appellants Latham and Edwards, the building's owners, assert that it was also error to impose liability against them. They argue that violation of section 78 of the Multiple Dwelling Law, which requires an owner of a multiple dwelling to keep its building in good repair, cannot form the basis for liability to commercial tenants in the building. It is not disputed that the building, which contained residential units, was a multiple...