Win for NYCHA: No Liability in Premises Liability Case

border-bottom-line-min

No liability in premises liability case; Storm in Progress doctrine applies

Davis v New York City Housing Authority, ___ Slip Op ____, Index 160530/2024 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cty. Oct. 17, 2024)

When a dangerous condition forms because of sudden weather, must a property owner be responsible for an accident that follows? In a recent decision, a New York County court answered no, because the owner did not have actual or constructive notice, and it dismissed Plaintiff’s Complaint.

Plaintiff left her apartment building one night a bit after 1:30 am for a quick trip to the local store. She alleged that when she returned to the building, a leak caused her to slip and fall near the entrance door of the lobby. She testified that there was no water on the lobby floor when she first left for the store, but when she returned there was water “everywhere” and she slipped three times. She described the rain at that time as “bad.”

The Court found that based on testimony, the janitorial schedule, and the certified weather records, NYCHA established that there was no actual or constructive notice of the condition that caused Plaintiff’s accident. In opposition, Plaintiff failed to raise an issue of fact.

Notably, “NYCHA is not required to guarantee the building is free from any potentially dangerous condition by patrolling every inch of it 24 hours a day”, the Court wrote. Also, although there were other prior water leaks at the premises, unrelated leaks in areas apart from where Plaintiff slipped and fell did not transform the complained-of condition into a recurrent one.

Finally, the Court determined that Plaintiff failed to provide any evidence that the water Plaintiff slipped on came from anything other than the water tracked into the building during the storm. “Building owners cannot prevent some water being brought into an entranceway on a rainy day and are not responsible for injuries caused thereby unless it is shown that the entrance is inherently dangerous or that the owner failed to use care to remedy conditions which had become dangerous, after actual or constructive notice of such conditions.”

AGF&J Associate Atasia Richardson briefed the defendant’s motion for summary judgment.

Decision and Order 10.17.2024