The Leasing Hotline

Customer Awarded for Exposure to Blood at Checkout

In Kulik v. Acme Markets Inc., 172471, Burlington County Superior Court, NJ 03-03-2009, a jury awarded $51,500 to a supermarket patron who licked another customer's blood that got on his fingers after he touched a checkout counter. Lester Kulik was at a self-checkout counter in an Acme supermarket when he noticed blood on his finger. He put his finger in his mouth, thinking that he cut himself. However, employees alerted him that the previous customer at the checkout counter had been bleeding profusely and was escorted out of the store by an employee. Kulik claimed emotional distress for the subsequent six-month wait to receive test results for HIV and hepatitis, which were negative. He was willing to settle for $10,000, but the supermarket only offered $6,000. The jury's award included $1,500 for testing costs.

Tenant May Assert Constructive Eviction Claim Against Landlord's Mortgagee

In Reliastar Life Insurance Company of New York v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., 570 F.3d 513 (2d Cir. 2009), Home Depot was the tenant that built the leased premises on a pad constructed by the predecessor of the plaintiff-mortgagee. The building developed cracks allegedly due to the faulty construction of the pad. After attempting to repair the cracks, Home Depot vacated the premises and stopped paying rent. Reliastar sued, and Home Depot claimed constructive eviction. The Second Circuit vacated the district court's judgment in favor of plaintiff where: 1) New York's Uniform Commercial Code does not prohibit defendant from asserting constructive eviction as a defense to plaintiff's claims arising from the lease; 2) the estoppel certificate in the recognition agreement does not bar defendant's constructive eviction defense if defendant was unaware of the faulty condition of the building pad when it executed the parties' recognition agreement and its lack of awareness was reasonable at the time; and 3) defendant was constructively evicted, the lease was terminated and defendant was relieved of its obligation to pay rent under the “hell or high water” clause of the parties' recognition.

Customer Awarded for Exposure to Blood at Checkout

In Kulik v. Acme Markets Inc., 172471, Burlington County Superior Court, NJ 03-03-2009, a jury awarded $51,500 to a supermarket patron who licked another customer's blood that got on his fingers after he touched a checkout counter. Lester Kulik was at a self-checkout counter in an Acme supermarket when he noticed blood on his finger. He put his finger in his mouth, thinking that he cut himself. However, employees alerted him that the previous customer at the checkout counter had been bleeding profusely and was escorted out of the store by an employee. Kulik claimed emotional distress for the subsequent six-month wait to receive test results for HIV and hepatitis, which were negative. He was willing to settle for $10,000, but the supermarket only offered $6,000. The jury's award included $1,500 for testing costs.

Tenant May Assert Constructive Eviction Claim Against Landlord's Mortgagee

In Reliastar Life Insurance Company of New York v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. , 570 F.3d 513 (2d Cir. 2009), Home Depot was the tenant that built the leased premises on a pad constructed by the predecessor of the plaintiff-mortgagee. The building developed cracks allegedly due to the faulty construction of the pad. After attempting to repair the cracks, Home Depot vacated the premises and stopped paying rent. Reliastar sued, and Home Depot claimed constructive eviction. The Second Circuit vacated the district court's judgment in favor of plaintiff where: 1) New York's Uniform Commercial Code does not prohibit defendant from asserting constructive eviction as a defense to plaintiff's claims arising from the lease; 2) the estoppel certificate in the recognition agreement does not bar defendant's constructive eviction defense if defendant was unaware of the faulty condition of the building pad when it executed the parties' recognition agreement and its lack of awareness was reasonable at the time; and 3) defendant was constructively evicted, the lease was terminated and defendant was relieved of its obligation to pay rent under the “hell or high water” clause of the parties' recognition.