Ifebi v Tag Realty, Inc.

[*1] Ifebi v Tag Realty, Inc. 2009 NY Slip Op 52600(U) [26 Misc 3d 126(A)] Decided on December 15, 2009 Appellate Term, Second Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.

Decided on December 15, 2009
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
APPELLATE TERM: 2nd, 11th and 13th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : GOLIA, J.P., PESCE and WESTON, JJ
2008-1906 K C.

Emeka C. Ifebi, Appellant,

against

Tag Realty, Inc., Respondent.

Appeal from a judgment of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Loren Baily-Schiffman, J.), entered June 24, 2008. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, dismissed the action.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed without costs.

Plaintiff commenced this small claims action to recover for damage to her property resulting from a fire in her apartment building. At the nonjury trial, plaintiff submitted a fire marshal's incident report, which indicated that the fire had resulted from an electrical wiring failure in a space located under the roof and directly over plaintiff's apartment. The Civil Court ruled that the evidence was insufficient to establish defendant's liability for the damage. We agree and affirm.

In order to hold defendant landlord liable for damage resulting from a defective condition on the premises, plaintiff was required to establish that defendant had created the condition or that it had "actual or constructive notice of the condition for such a period of time that, in the exercise of reasonable care, it should have been corrected" (Juarez v Wavecrest Mgt. Team, 88 NY2d 628, 646 [1996]; see e.g. Giaccio v 179 Tenants Corp., 45 AD3d 454, 455 [2007]; Associated Mut. Ins. Co. v Kipp's Arcadian II, 298 AD2d 478, 479 [2002]; Travelers Prop. Cas. v Gomez Supermarket, 195 Misc 2d 876 [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2003]). Here, it cannot be said that the Civil Court's conclusions, in effect, that the proof did not establish defendant's responsibility for the wiring's condition or defendant's actual or constructive knowledge that there existed a risk of fire, latent or otherwise (Giaccio v 179 Tenants Corp., 45 AD3d at 455), or that the wiring failure was of a nature that does not normally occur in the absence of negligence (Kambat v St. Francis Hosp., 89 NY2d 489, 494 [1997]; Dermatossian v New York City Tr. Auth., 67 NY2d 219, 226 [1986]; Mejia v New York City Tr. Auth., 291 [*2]AD2d 225, 227 [2002]), could not be reached under any fair interpretation of the evidence (Claridge Gardens v Menotti, 160 AD2d 544 [1990]).

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment, as it provided the parties with substantial justice according to the rules and principles of substantive law (CCA 1804, 1807; see Ross v Friedman, 269 AD2d 584 [2000]; Williams v Roper, 269 AD2d 125, 126 [2000]).

Golia, J.P., Pesce and Weston, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: December 15, 2009