Landlord & Tenant

Landlord Not Liable for Tenant's Assault on Fellow Tenant

Reinert v. 291 Pleasant Avenue LLC

NYLJ 11/6/09, p. 26, col. 3

Civil Ct., N.Y. Cty

(Engoron, J.)

In an action by tenant against landlord for injuries suffered as a result of an assault by another tenant, landlord moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. The court granted landlord's motion, holding that tenant's prior complaints to landlord about the assaulting tenant's behavior did not create landlord liability for the attack.

The Rosarios lived on the top floor of the building in which tenant leased a ground-floor apartment. Tenant had complained to landlord about Iris Rosario smoking drugs in the hallway, and about the Rosario children, including 17-year old Daniel, smoking drugs on the stoop with their friends, and about members of the “Rosario-Rivera drug gang” vandalizing her apartment and harassing her. Two days before the incident at issue, tenant had complained to landlord about building security. Then, on the day in question, when tenant heard Daniel Rosario outside her door discussing sales of drugs, tenant asked Daniel to leave, and tenant alleges that Daniel then slapped her in the face. When the two became entangled, tenant fell to the floor, Daniel fell on top of her, and tenant suffered injuries requiring a complete knee replacement. Tenant then brought this action against landlord to recover for damages.

In dismissing the complaint, the court first held that tenant could not recover pursuant to Real Property Law section 231(2), which makes owners liable to tenants when the owner knowingly permits premises to be used for an unlawful trade or business. The court concluded that tenant's complaints had centered on drug use and vandalism, but had not provided landlord with notice that the Rosarios were dealing drugs in the apartment. In the absence of any other evidence, tenant could not sustain a claim under section 231. The court then rejected tenant's contention that landlord had violated its common law duty to operate and maintain a residential building in a reasonably safe condition. The court emphasized that in this case, there had been no allegation that the Rosarios had been arrested, that landlord had been notified of drug dealing, or that the police had raided the building. As a result, landlord had no obligation to take measures to protect tenants against the Rosarios. In addition, the court suggested that tenant had assumed the risk of injury by opening her door to ask Daniel Rosario to leave at a time when she knew that Daniel had previously harassed her.

COMMENT

R.P.L. ' 231(2) imposes liability on landlords for injuries that result when landlord knowingly permits an unlawful trade, business, or manufacture at the premises. The statute applies to drug dealing, but only when landlord has knowledge of the drug-selling taking place. In Beatty v. National Assn. for the Advancement of Colored People, 194 A.D.2d 361, 364, the court found the landlord ' who had been repeatedly notified of the sale of drugs and other illicit activities taking place at the building ' liable for the tenant's injuries when tenant was attacked with a machete after telling the assailant to quit doing drugs in the hallway. Id. at 363. By contrast, in Reinert, the injured tenant's evidence establishing only landlord's awareness of drug consumption, but not drug sales.

Even when the statute is inapplicable, the common law imposes liability on a landlord who is negligent in taking the minimal precautions necessary to protect tenants from foreseeable harm. Thus, in Luisa R. v. The City of New York, 253 A.D.2d 196, 200-01, the court held that tenant, who had been raped, raised a triable issue of fact about the foreseeability of her injuries by offering proof about the building's lack of security, the fact drug-dealing and robberies were commonplace at the building, and the fact that the tenant had been threatened.

To prevail either under the statute or the common law, tenant must prove that landlord's actions were the proximate cause of tenant's injury. Thus, in Muniz v. Flohern Inc., 77 NY2d 869, 870, the court held that even though landlord was aware of drug-trafficking and did nothing to stop it, landlord was not liable for injuries suffered by a passerby infant during an attempted robbery, because the robbery was not related to the drug-trafficking activity. Similarly, a landlord is not liable for injuries when the victim's relationship with the aggressor was a supervening cause of the tenant's injuries.

Thus, in Blatt v. New York City Hous. Auth., 123 A.D.2d 591, 592, the landlord was not found liable for the shooting of a tenant by another tenant whose daughter was romantically involved with the shooting victim. The court held that the landlord did not have the ability or reasonable opportunity to control the aggressor, even though landlord knew that the aggressor had previously threatened and harassed the victim. Similarly, in Reinert, where the altercation between tenants was the result of a personal affront, landlord had little ability to protect the tenant, who opened the door knowing that the drug user was in the hallway.

Landlord Not Liable for Tenant's Assault on Fellow Tenant

Reinert v. 291 Pleasant Avenue LLC

NYLJ 11/6/09, p. 26, col. 3

Civil Ct., N.Y. Cty

(Engoron, J.)

In an action by tenant against landlord for injuries suffered as a result of an assault by another tenant, landlord moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. The court granted landlord's motion, holding that tenant's prior complaints to landlord about the assaulting tenant's behavior did not create landlord liability for the attack.

The Rosarios lived on the top floor of the building in which tenant leased a ground-floor apartment. Tenant had complained to landlord about Iris Rosario smoking drugs in the hallway, and about the Rosario children, including 17-year old Daniel, smoking drugs on the stoop with their friends, and about members of the “Rosario-Rivera drug gang” vandalizing her apartment and harassing her. Two days before the incident at issue, tenant had complained to landlord about building security. Then, on the day in question, when tenant heard Daniel Rosario outside her door discussing sales of drugs, tenant asked Daniel to leave, and tenant alleges that Daniel then slapped her in the face. When the two became entangled, tenant fell to the floor, Daniel fell on top of her, and tenant suffered injuries requiring a complete knee replacement. Tenant then brought this action against landlord to recover for damages.

In dismissing the complaint, the court first held that tenant could not recover pursuant to Real Property Law section 231(2), which makes owners liable to tenants when the owner knowingly permits premises to be used for an unlawful trade or business. The court concluded that tenant's complaints had centered on drug use and vandalism, but had not provided landlord with notice that the Rosarios were dealing drugs in the apartment. In the absence of any other evidence, tenant could not sustain a claim under section 231. The court then rejected tenant's contention that landlord had violated its common law duty to operate and maintain a residential building in a reasonably safe condition. The court emphasized that in this case, there had been no allegation that the Rosarios had been arrested, that landlord had been notified of drug dealing, or that the police had raided the building. As a result, landlord had no obligation to take measures to protect tenants against the Rosarios. In addition, the court suggested that tenant had assumed the risk of injury by opening her door to ask Daniel Rosario to leave at a time when she knew that Daniel had previously harassed her.

COMMENT

R.P.L. ' 231(2) imposes liability on landlords for injuries that result when landlord knowingly permits an unlawful trade, business, or manufacture at the premises. The statute applies to drug dealing, but only when landlord has knowledge of the drug-selling taking place. In Beatty v. National Assn. for the Advancement of Colored People , 194 A.D.2d 361, 364, the court found the landlord ' who had been repeatedly notified of the sale of drugs and other illicit activities taking place at the building ' liable for the tenant's injuries when tenant was attacked with a machete after telling the assailant to quit doing drugs in the hallway. Id. at 363. By contrast, in Reinert, the injured tenant's evidence establishing only landlord's awareness of drug consumption, but not drug sales.

Even when the statute is inapplicable, the common law imposes liability on a landlord who is negligent in taking the minimal precautions necessary to protect tenants from foreseeable harm. Thus, in Luisa R. v. The City of New York, 253 A.D.2d 196, 200-01, the court held that tenant, who had been raped, raised a triable issue of fact about the foreseeability of her injuries by offering proof about the building's lack of security, the fact drug-dealing and robberies were commonplace at the building, and the fact that the tenant had been threatened.

To prevail either under the statute or the common law, tenant must prove that landlord's actions were the proximate cause of tenant's injury. Thus, in Muniz v. Flohern Inc., 77 NY2d 869, 870, the court held that even though landlord was aware of drug-trafficking and did nothing to stop it, landlord was not liable for injuries suffered by a passerby infant during an attempted robbery, because the robbery was not related to the drug-trafficking activity. Similarly, a landlord is not liable for injuries when the victim's relationship with the aggressor was a supervening cause of the tenant's injuries.

Thus, in Blatt v. New York City Hous. Auth ., 123 A.D.2d 591, 592, the landlord was not found liable for the shooting of a tenant by another tenant whose daughter was romantically involved with the shooting victim. The court held that the landlord did not have the ability or reasonable opportunity to control the aggressor, even though landlord knew that the aggressor had previously threatened and harassed the victim. Similarly, in Reinert, where the altercation between tenants was the result of a personal affront, landlord had little ability to protect the tenant, who opened the door knowing that the drug user was in the hallway.