Anderson v Trustees of Columbia Univ. in the City of N.Y.

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Anderson v Trustees of Columbia Univ. in the City of N.Y. 2013 NY Slip Op 33316(U) January 22, 2013 Sup Ct, New York County Docket Number: 114152/08 Judge: Paul Wooten Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip Op 30001(U), are republished from various state and local government websites. These include the New York State Unified Court System's E-Courts Service, and the Bronx County Clerk's office. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication. SCANNED ON 2/6/2013 [* 1] _,,': ·,. ~ New'·¥d~k.a.o0NT'( .. SUPREMi= COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW )'.'cJRK . ··· . PART 7. HQN, PAUL WQOJE;N' PRESENT: . · · Jusfi~~ ,,.' · ' ', ,Y ;: ' \! ,, ' .006 1-' '' . THE TRUSTEES. OF COLUM131A: UNIVERSITY IN THE CITY OF N'EWYORK, . .. Defendant. The following pap.er$.; ll.u!llbered FEB 05 2013 " NE:W YOAK. . , '' ' ,, ,, ' ',,' j, ! I 'I",' r . ~·to 3 were re~hYs~961~.aht .for s9~mary judgment. .PAPERS NUMBERED. .. Not.ice of Motion/ Order t~ Show.Cause -Affidavits....:.. Exhibits ... . . . . . ' ~ 1141s;16s· -against· ' ', '·'I',,,'':,', < .INDEXNb.:: i ·.· . ' ' '' ' ' I , ' ' ' Answering Affida¥its ......., Exhib.its (Memo) _ _ _ _ _ ____,____~ ~eplyingAffidavlts (~eply Memo)_ ____._ _ _...........__--'---________....,.·.,···_·3_···-··---.,.......,. Cross~Motion:. [ ] Ye$ ii No Motion sequences 006 and 007 are hereby consolidated for pu~poses df disposition. ,, , ' , ' I '1 1 ' Karl Anderson (plaintiff) <alleges in his.cc;irtiplaintthat he suffered sev.ere.l:>urn~ When he f~ll ' ' , against an uninsulated e;team pipe after passing out in the l:>athrool'n of the from The Trusfe~s ofQblumqia University (de.fencfant). moves for an order granting I, ap~rtnientiJerent~ In motion sequencE:1 OQ6, det¢ndant . ifsLrnirn~ry judgment dismissing' thecompl~lnt, pursuflrytto CPLR .3212. In motion .sequence 007; defend~nt moves pursuant to. CPLR 3025(0) .anci/or a·~25{ c), for leave to amend its answer. Discovery is complete and Note of Issue has .been filed . . BACKGROUND ' ,, ' Plaintiff is a Columbia Law School student, who resided in an apadment located at 411 W. 1151h Street in Manhattan. ThE:l building was owned and operated by the defendant. The ', bathroom of the apartment was heated ,, py an uninsulated and .uncovere.d steam riser pipe that . ' was approximately 1.9 inches in front of the toilet (see Affirmation ofJeremy A Helln1an, Esq. ,, ' ' [Hellman Aff.], Exhibits.A, F). On February 17, 2007, while plaintiff was usir'l~fthe toilet he Page 1 of 12 · , .·.'I [* 2] or~y~co~e.· c;o~riiori1y known ;~$fai8t1rJs ~r!'r6iss.:BI .26ri'sc1qu~oes·s, vvhich··'· suttereo a.n episode. le~n.·f~rW·~r~ ¢··~na·m ¢a:~~· ¢ ¢c~~t~pt:with· ¢·t~e . ·s:~~~~::.ri ¢~.·.~·rpfp~;··· ¢:: ¢.H.e;'sL$taine~;.··~~·~D ¢s ¢ ¢to c.aused him. ¢to. lhe ¢plaihtlff~ll~ges tl1att.he defenoa~tp·rel?9~~~'.~.:di;ityJq.inS,ulate the steam riser pipe pursuant to common la~ and section 27~80·9 pf:th~·~dn:ffni$ffat.i~ci do~.e of the . his face and shoLJlder.; ' (' ,, 'l'i,'' '' ii' \ /" · ',,,,, ' ', ,,,, >''' / ·'' ¢', ,' 1 ' ' ¢ I> ' ''',: ,, v u ,,,,.' ,, I I' ', City of New York, (Adm in: ;ode}. ' ' \ I "I ',,: ,' \, '',I,' ' ' ',,:' :, ' ',: ,' , ,,,., ,.,'" ' ,' ,' ':: "' ', .\' ,'' 'I ,,' '' \ \',I' _''"' ,:',:,/," ,,,'', ;'':\ }'' ,,>\ \, 1, ',' ''< ', :,' would frequently.. make iha.9"'.ertent contact with' the .st~an1 pip~ due t~·lts; cloe.e prox'Hrtity,'tO the· ' ·· toilet (Hellman Aff,, Exhibit C, ·p, 50-6:3):. The plaintiff al~io . made the bathropm t~stified thalbecau$~ th~ pipe often unb6a'rab1'y hot, h'e,wo~ld 6tte~ have ;to open a win'~ov/that was.located ··. .right next to the riserpipe, ¢rtsklng further contact with the pipe. Two rfoq~patW witnesses haye .sl.Jbmittecl affid,gvlt~. stating t.Qat they often 111aoe" cont~ct w:ith the pip~·whu~ yefH~ the:b~~.h{oo'ni . and on .some' occasions a~t~allysinged their skin (id., Exhibit .D). Th~ ·~t~~i~·fis,erpf~e ;as so ·····.. close to the toilet ttn:it at the time. of the occurrence, the plaintiff w~s t>urned while ' \ ' " ' , '' ', ' \),, <' ~till .sitting on .... , " ' ¢"' the toilet (id., ExhibitsB, C).·· The plaintiff claims·th.afhe complained tO the building's superjnteQdent.qntwo·separnte '' ,, \ , ,, < , ' ,, ,, >, 'I' ,, '1' ' ', i,,, ,1 ''''' ,\11 priorto'~He.o,c9Grre~ce ¢Jeg:ardipgth~\hazardou~ .s~$am ~ilJ~,(tq., Exhi:~itp,p.50~53; e.xhibit 8). Several· yea rs prior.to the occu~ren¢e,. the $ubject bath.ro·6rn·was.· ~ef10Vate~ ¢l;'<;f.,. .occasidns , , Exhibit G). All ,ofthe fixtures in the. bathrciom w~re.repl::iced but the s'teatT) risf!r.pipe remainec;l · " I ' , 1,'' ',> '\' Ii' , , '' , ,, ·' ,I',:,:,',,', ,, :" '< ' , ,' \ , , ' uncovered antfunlns~l.ated. (id;). Motion sequence 006 . . motion sequence 006,Jhe .defendantmoves for. In had no duty to irisulati;!, ci.overor re'gulatelhe steam riser heatirig ¢pipe pursuanttocammon law and/or section 27.. 809 of the Admin. Code. rejected claims that landlords have " steam riser pipes .. summaryjudg~ent, arguing .that it I Defend~nt asserts that N~w. York cq&rts ha~~ Jong aco.rilmon-law duty to provide coveting.or insUlati'o.nfor. ' ' ', '1 Def~n~antalso argues that it had no duty to illsul~te or regulate th~ heat . Page 2 of 12 ' ,''' [* 3] $~bJe·ct buildlbg ~as\ 1 ¢ ¢·· .. pipe pursuant fo section 2h809 ¢c>fthe Adniin. dpde.'bec¢tl,lse tbe cohstructed ptior to ! th~ en~¢trnent.·of this statute in l~ea. ~n~ th~·~x6ep~frJ"hs ~fii~h ret:~eactiveJy ' ' ,'' ' , !, ' , ' ¢ ' ' '' i ' , I 1 ' ' 1 , ' ' ' ' ~ ,I , '" ' , ' '' !' ' I ' < d~ not t)pply to th·iS bUilqi)1~. dn.· s,upport of its· motion,< defendant submits an affidavitfr<;>m an expert witness, Stev~n PT~tMp~;rd( an ehgi~e~r. Defendant further argu$s.that .the Rlalnfiffs fainting or passing out ~nd m~king''b9ntact With th~ . impose liability for code. violations I ' ., ' ' ' ' " < , ' , ' \ 1 ' , ' . I''' ' , " , '-'.,'" , ''',' ¢1' 1'""' , ',,,\, ', ' ' an intervening act, .that was not a forese'eable rl~kthat ·Wa~·prb~imately ¢ ¢.. steam riser pipe was a11eg~d failure tp Insu:1ate the pipe 'in tt1e ap~rtm~~t:·8;throorn. In opposition, .plaintiff argues that the defendant did n~t establish a pri~~::fa~ie case for caused by the detenciant's I '' summary judgment because: (1) ,,:'' , ' I ' I , d~fendant did notestablish th cit it wa; n6t:statwtbr11y required ,, ,( ,'' ', ,' ", ' \ ,',,'', ':,',' ', ,,' to cover the steam riser pipe because the affidavit of Steven Pletropal6 ddesnote'stablish thE:! ·. value and extent of thetenov~tions m~de fo the·buildihg at tt:ie timeof the occurr~n.ce and· . . >' ' ' , therefore does not es.tablish that thebuilding ·is notsubject ' <''' ' '' ¢I, ·' ' ' fo the!Admin. Code ~rbvisiolls ' \ cite.d I' by the plaintiff; (2) defend;::rnt fails to show that itproperly maintained the·hf;atipg pip~ pursdant to common~law principles; (3) the defendanfs expert failed to. estaplish.that the pipe was safe I ,,,' I ' <, ¢ <' , , 4 '', ', ', I ', :,' 1 , ' ,, 1 and (4) there is.an issue offact as to whether it was foreseeable ~hat the P.laintiffcouJcj make. ' contact with the ' \' ' ,/,, ' ex~osed pipe. Plai~t:iff has submitted his own expert ~ffi.d~yfttr6~/~lviri Ub~ll. Mr. Ubell opines that ~he qefehdant Mei?th·ed. its duty to safely maintaintheprerfrls~s<and····· specifically breac;:hed a ~tat~tory cil,ltyt9 insul~te or cover·t~e pipe. Motion sequence 007 In motion sequence 007, the defendant moyes, pursuant to CPLR3025(b) arid/or . ' , ' , ' 3025(c), for an .order granting it le.avt3 to amend its answer to adda denitil. qf plai~tiff;s ' , , negligence allegation$. During the cours.e Qfthe briefing plaintiff raises. the 1.ssue \ ' ¢, ,, ,, ,, on thi$ summa(yjudgn1ent motion,. that the deferiqqnt's answer failed to address. or respond to sever.al .· paragraphs of the plalntiff's complaint, which concerned the alleged acts of· negligence on the " part of the def~Mant and the plaintiff's alleged injuries .. Page 3 of 12 The. ,, defend~nt claims that its failureto. . [* 4] .address an\1 deny. th~se ~lle§:t,~n~,> ¢j> ¢ Q~~ing n'ore \hari inl!ci~~~ii.t ¢~i\q ~~~~ab1~ rt)~ti~~ ¢ · . . an.d law. office. failure,.· Defe~dafotMOW rhoV~~.fo ~me~·a.:ifs. ~hsw.ehd:.iriclude d~~i~i onf\~$e, ). ' < '' < ' I '' '' ' '''I ,,, ,'' ''> '" ,,,,' ' '' ' '', '' '',' '' I ¢.. 1 to ¢defend~nrs n:iouonto .a~ericl:· ·<.· . allegations. Pla.ihtiff is in opposition ' 1 ' ,, " ,-;\,,' According to CP(_R ·~025(bJ; ·'a ' p~riy. may amf§nd his ·ple~di~g . ~t ~~y tirn~ by leave Ot · ... co.urt and. "[IJeave snan oe treeJy 9tven upon."5uch terms as may ~eJust'1.: the .ch~tenoant argues .that. the ·amended answer only. confitnJS what has long been un~~rst9qd, that;it intedd$ 1 tO ¢'d~ny: ,"1 plaintiff's allegatibns ..pfn~Qli~ence .on its part, as well. as conte~t·the;h~tyr~ , plaintiff's I , ' ' ' " anp s.~J$1a 1 C>f .·. . I < I ':1~ " ! , ' injuri~s:. ,,'' ~TANDARDS < . Summary Judgni~nt .· The proponeht ofa ;~mmaryjudgment motion mu$t make a pr) ma ;faci@'·~hb~ing of.:· ',' ,,( entitlement to judgment as ~ rnatte(ofl~W 1 tenclerif19· SUffitieJlt e~id~nbe f0·:91lt)1iri21t;e :any: material issue of fact from tHe .. case {S~al1$ .v AJlJndµs.; .trw..16N~Sd 733, 735, rea/gdenied. ' ,, ' " '" I ," , ' ''"I" 1o NY3d. 885 [2008];. JMD ho!ding.Corp . ¢.v Cqngres$ Fi(J. Corp., 4 Nr3d .373 [2005]). Thf .·. failure to make such.shoWin~ requirt;:~ denial of the motion, regarcHess of the suffich:mcy.otthe I , '',',>',:,1,.', existence of material issues of factwf)ich requir~ a trial of the ~Cti:Ort Mer~ , \ expressions of hope, or unsubstantiated·. > ' ,. , ,, ,> ' I '' 1 '' !, cohcluSioqs, .·;· .. ,,, ''·' "· I alleg~tions .are insufficient forthis. pur~o·~e(~uckerman 1 ' I ',, '',: ' [19~0]). ·. v City of New York, .49 NY2d 557' ' '· , I \ ' I '~ ' ' Duties of landowner to remedy danqerqus ordefective.conditioh A landowner has .~· duW to ex~rci~ereasonable care to rnaintainits pre.mises in a·· ¢. I ,1 " , , ' ,I ,, ,, reasonably safe conditiqn' ".In view of Sii the circumstances, inc:ludlng the likelihodd of ir'ljur.y to othe·rs, the seriousness ofth~ inj4ry and.the burden of avoidingJ1$k'.(SolomonvPrainito, 52 Page 4 of 12 u I ¢ ¢ ¢ [* 5] ' \ ,4.03d 803, 804·805 [2nd ' ' dept '20foJ, .qqoting Basso v Ntti/er, 40 NY~d<'',~3$\: :241· [,j,~75}): The< ,J, ?',/ ;,,' /':,' ;, ,' \ ,. ' 1 ,: ' " 1 ,'' ' ,' ,, \ ', ', .'>' ',,/I ', ',' ~ ·, ' ,,< >_1 1 1 , 1, , , ,,,_,, 1 1 :, ', ,' ' :g·· e. ... ' . . . . neral ~u,e 1s·thanrlandlordi srio. 1~ e o.·a ten . t for ;;1· .·ti o'us,cgn..i, < i ; t~;·bl't an .. ¢ ¢"'1aPei1;?r. · .· \ d"tl'.9:·t1~6ri·m~;tea<a~d ·.· ·. ¢ . , . . ... : . '1 ..... . '1 premises, unless a ~uty to repaif..the prf?. mises is impo.s&d by.·st~tut~ 1'by reg4l.ation9r by. " ' ',, ,, , ¢f' ' , \ ' '' ,' . ,, \, '·' Dwelling Law§ 78[1], which holds that ¢very Multiple Dwellihg shall "bekeptJn gdod repaW: and > ' I , ,, 1 <'' I ,, .· <' ' ",I opligati~~n (Mu!tJ;ple b~·~1nci9 laJ ·. ¢. .··. § 78[1]; Rivera,.7 ¢. NY3d.at 535) ... Thus, ~he·MultipleD~~lllng·Lawextende~ th~l~:bdt6ra·~:duJy···. ¢· ., that the "owner shaH be respcmsible for:ca.mpl.iance" withthe1t ' to repair, limited ~t ,, ' , ' ) .,, \ ~ommon law tq thos:e·areas of the leased property.oV$C~hic8·itretained control, to all parts ofthe demised premises (id.; ·Juarez · v Wavecrest Mgf Team, 88 NY2d 628 ... ¢ 643 (19.96]). S.ection 27-:809 of th~ Admiri: ~ode1 requires as ftlHows in perti~~ntpait ...... All acce$1Sible .piping, in habitable and occupable room$ ca~rying,. stea:m~ wate( or ¢ot.het.... fluids at temperatures exceeding . .bn~ hUncired sixty~five degrees .F.ahrenhe.lt'shall be insulated . ¢ .. · · · .. · · · · · · ·· · ¢··.. ' '· · · · · · · Where accessible piping carries ~ Jluid not exc~eding two. hundred fifty degrees . . Fahrenheif and insulation would interfere with the functioning. ofthe system, such piping ·. may be uninsulate,d. · · · · ' ', .i ',', ' <,,,\I',',, ' ,'' , ' ' ,, ' . ", ,,·, 11 1 .' ,,, <" ,'', ,',' ,, 1 ,,' ,,,' ',,, ' ' ,',''., :,'' 1 :: ¢ . ' ,'i,;, 1 These and other code .sections ,Cited her&in .are par:t'.ofthe New .YorkGity 8.uildihg1and' 1 ' ,' 1 ' '' ' ' Plllmbing Codes. ¢and are .cited bythe ¢ plaintiff in support of his statutorily liablefqr ' 1' , ! '',' 1 , _,, I, , , arg~ment that the. defeim~a~t.is .· . · i~s failure to insu)ateiorcover th.eheating pipe. ltis.wellsettledlfi~t~······· . .· <i . building owner i.n New York City has a' duty to maintain his puilding in cornpliancer wltry the 1 ,,, ' ' I > ' ',, / building code and other statutory man~~t!3s unless the building ls gn:mdfatheredpursuant to section 27-111 o.f the Admiri . . Code (GJzman v Haven Plaza ', ',' '', ,' ' ,' \' ,\ ,, ,,, ,,,' ,\',, ' ,, 1_" Inc., 69 NY2d 559, 564~565(1987]; S.arrrlifmto Housi~gDevelbpmentFund Co,, ,' ,;,, , ,' :I ,,, '' ': ', ,, 1, ,i ': ' , ' v. C&E Assoc., 40 AD3q. 5,24, 528 [1s t Dept. ' ,, 1 < : ' ,, ,' \ 2007]). The parties appear to agree that.the subject building was built pri.or to 1968 ~nd would ~ 27~111 ;. ¢· Isaacs v West 34th Apt~. cprp., 36 Ab3.d 414, 416 [1st Dept 2oonrflnding that Suildin~ Code therefore not normally be subjectto the provisions of the Gode (see Adm in. Code Page 5 of 12 ,,, '1 [* 6] .wher~ subj~cf:b,uilqing,wa.s ·cohstruct~d pfiorJo, ~(f~otr~e\;:~~(~J{:~~d~~'·,v· ¢··. Presbyterien Hd~P.' .a AD'.~<1;25,Z~S .[1 $\··~~~!· ·~o~J[11qdl~g iti~t.~~~!~~~~ Bgf11'.ify'.f~j w~~ '. ¢ not subject to building :99~~]). fhe .Building Cociewas effectivebn . Qecemp~r $... 1'96~.(Admin.·:··.· . did not apply 27~1.11 p~o\/!~13~th~t ¢ lawful oc6up~ncy'~hd·use c>f:~ri~ buil~lng on · the Code's effective date rriay be. c~ntihued. However, where a' change i~ occupef1o~ or use is . Code, § 27-105): Section ,, .','\',1,' \,\ made, the re·establishrnenth(aprior dccupariCiy or use th.at e.xlst13dbef6re ¢i1~e:C~:ls·ptq,hibited: ..· ¢ ," \ ,\,, ',,,:,,'<·' '','-!, >' ,,' '-'<,! ", '',,,;,.,' , ''',,' ,',':-';,-''I ,\'1,:',<,,:' >~:,'·,,';, '',,', ,\'I unless there is compliance with the Code (ic:i. at§ 27-t 12). $imilarly, whet.e .alt.e.ratiohs to ,an·" ,','' ',, ' ' ' ' , ,'1 ' ' '. ,, ' ' ,, ,, ' ' the entire building must be brought ih compli~nce wnJ1the 1968 ., e.xisting building are m;;lcfe, ' ' < ' ' r'' ' Code if the cost qfaiterat.lons .wiU-lini a twetve nionth perio\:l . ·(id. at§ '\ < ,,, ' ' ' exceeds ~0% ·ofthe building valu~ , 27~115). VVh~.nthecostof··~lt!?rations within a. twelve mo~th.peri~d i~310o/oto 90% of ,, , , I " ,. , the yalue of' the bWill-'Jln,g, only the , , , I ,, , ,, portlorrs' of the. building altered must be brou:gh,tlnto· ¢. ¢. compliance. with the J968<ccde{id. at§ 27~116), Yet, where the'cost6f alteratiphs'.in ~ny twelve month perJodfsless thanJOo/oolthe value of,the building, compliance WitbtheCode is "provid~dthe general'.safety ahd ~Ublicwelfare are not thereby endange ¢r~d,;\(/c:I. at§ optional 27-117). Furth~~more, if the alteration of a space in a building involve~ a change/in the: occupancy or use th$reof, the alterat.ion wo.rk involved in the 6hangeshall t>e with the . thad,e tQ·GompJy ·... · ¢. (equire~ents:of th~ c;d~:and the,remaining portion of th¢ bLIHding shall>p~\·~itered·to. ~uch an extent necessary to protect the s;atety and welfare of the ;obcuP,ari·t$ (id.· st:,§27r1'1· 8): 1 . However, . ¢. at the:o~tlon ofth~ own~r;reg~r:dl~ss of the cost ofth~ialteraticm or corwersion, an ' '\ alteration maybe made to a Multiple o.welllng in a.ccor:dance with law.s.ln e.xistence prior to. . 1968 code, provided the gen'eral th~ s~fety a.nd public welfare are not endangered (IGJ. ~f§ .27· 120), Plaintiff argues that the.se .sections .are applicable as the defendant made .significant , ' ' ' alterations to the subject' bathroom back in 2000 that bring.the bathrbom into the ambit of the 1968 Code. The building fscle!arly a Multiple Dwelling as i.t served as housing e~cl~sively for , Columbia law schoo.1 styeients and contained 32 units on 6 floors, .Plaihtiff Page6of 12 p;lnt:s':t·o:th~ · [* 7] J , serv~d· as t~ei sb:i:>~rlti'~~ritj~~tqr t8~:buJJdih~f ffofn 195a.untiLhis.. rehtement·.ciri'.March:31,~opa(fie11m'qri:Aff;.,;.$x·.;~:··:.w. ¢. 7t:·~.i~ve~:.esttmW~d. ¢·. that sometime in 20.0b;;the entire ~~bject apartment, ¢ihcluding ffs.~:~tht0om1 ·W~t!. c:oi:np1et~1;·. ·. · deposition testimony of Louis Nieves ¢{Nieves}; w66 ,1 ,' 'r,,'', ;,,:,' renovated in order to allow it to serv'e as private stUde·Qt.howsing. {H~J1rlia'n 17) .. Plaintiff· als.o .maintains·that$.incethe Aft. ,:~x ..G, p, 13.· .. ' u~insulated st~am pip~ in::t~'.~i:'bathr~o~ ·eMci~n~er~d safety and puolic we.lfare·r th~ ..qefeh.dant. w~i;l Linder.a· statutory as well.a$a· c:ornrrion~law'dPWlP remedy the .allegedly ._defeotive ¢. c.o~dltion ~hen it peij6rmed',th~· alt~;atlo.~s·t~·thcf~~·~~.~~6r.: <.··' argues thl.'lt if.·vvas Mot abligate~to comply.,~ith'th'e ~d~fn. Code In reply, defendant because the costof the. ~Iterations thirty percent of the value ¢ ' ' ' ¢ defendant also points toihe'Sibdve:cited .language 'of the Admin. ' , I I \ ,/''1 th~t carry liquid ·exce~ding WP·tje.gr,ees must~e l~s'J1at~i:L~nl~~s,ihsulaHdn would interfere with the that t.he heating the ' ' Codi:i'Whlch;·SP9.Cifi¢:~uy)t~t~$ i ' that all steam pipes ·. to·t.h$ :b\,Jilding and/or the suqject apattn"l·~nt.did riot exc~ed · ofthe.bU,ildJf"l~·~Uh~ time thealterati~nswere p~rfor~ed. ' .·' ' · f~nctioning of t~e heafin.g sy~te~ .. Mr. Pletrop~olo opinesin 'his affidavit sy~tem in~ltjethe af;>artrne~t would nbt function properlydfth~ stea~ pipe ~e;~ ···· ¢· · ¢ · ins.ulated .. The. plairitiffs exp~rt, Mr: U.beH, di.s~gr~es and claimsthata p~rtial cbv~ring·or a metal grill could have .been placed ov~r or in front t;Jif.the steam pi.pELwithoyJc~us.ing significant loss of he.at br;urtqtlo~~lity. ,' ' :/,,'\ . <I'_' ',,,, ', ,', ,'',: ,'!" ¢ ¢ a. ¢. ¢. ¢. . · ·. ·. · ': ::1 ,._ ,,,, ,, >, \ I\ ' , , ,' t~e recor~, ¢.th~(fo!Jtt c:cncl4des thafdefendant is ·~Ot$nlitl~d .to· , summary judgment. First, bai:;ed ~ppn the re.co'rd, triab.I~ is$ues of fact e~is~ regarding whether the defendant wa$ obligated to maintain fh,e buildiog in acco~d;ance .With the provis:lons set fo.rth ·. 1 After reviewihg inApmin. Cod.e·§ 27~e.os, specifically·the requirement that pipes c~rrying steam orh6t~ateraf temp.eratures exoeeding one hundred sixty~five degrees be insulated. H iswell~settled that, ', ., when determining whether to grant summary judgment to ·a. defend~nt awrier, the burden is on the defendant to IC)ybare its proofthaUt is excepted from any obli~atiotis.underthe Adrrin ... Page 7 of 12 '.. , [* 8] I ,, 2000)). ',,',, ', I I,'',,,'';,,',,,'"_' <;,'/ < ,,, ''.',''!',,, ' ' I",',' "'1,', Relying onJhe Plf;ltrop~ola .affiqavit and wh~t,,it claim~ tb:h~.a ~ear~h ' : ' ' , " "' , ', >' ' ', ' 'I ' oftHe relevant :·· ··. · 1.96{3,,th~t th~. mpst. '', < , ' ~llactm~'.ntof'the 19:68 code o·ccurred ', ' ,,, , ¢ I ,, , ',, ~rnd Mt'.!Y t.:.wos and tot~ledappro;imately $21:.1:.0PO,arid·that..th~ v:aJue' between May 1, 20.0q of the , . ' extensive renovations pectorrned at the brnld.ing since the ' ,, ,,''''. subject building w~s .bui.ltb$fdre records, the defenda'ntargues that the ,' \' building~tthe;timeoftbe r~nov~t1ons'wr;Js··~pproxirnaie1y·$ge4,~7~1'· pursy?i.~i.tothe.·· I .. §·27~199 of\he ~·drnin. Code(one and one quarter tl~e~ the.ass:~sed formula set forth in ., ·' · . ,' ' ' :< 'i' I'' ', \ < ',, ,,: : I ,, ,' ' '',',' ', , . I','\,' '( ,', ',, ' , ,, ',,' ,, ' '-'' value of the buildlng)(Affirmation of ¢. RandiSchwartz, Esq., p. 7~8). H.oweverthe Information . '\ ,'1', the.re~ovatior1s performed at the building com~s fro~ an attorney . ¢. regarding the extent of , ' \,·, Without personal kriC)wletjge ohhe defendant performed'FJ.· tho.rough ',' bulldifrg's history, nor is there any 'iridiqijtionlhf1t:t~19 .· se~rchofit~records io determine.wheth:,r·anyiprior ·· ·· alterationst¢the building, .pr ..to plaintiff's ap<;!rtnient·, would have broughtthe.building~i'thinthe. parameters of the ·Cooe ... [)efendantfailed to .submit. any documentation evioencfo~ the ·exterlt' 0 of any alterations that were perforrtied at .the. subject property, such as ¢consth.lption records·, Suohdocument~tion~ould be critical to ')na(y~ingJhe'~6rk ¢~~rfdrmeq ¢, .· ·· ¢· .. ¢ ¢·· under any ahd ~11.pro~ision~ .ofJhe:Admln . Co~e 1 as W(illl asthe a~tJa1 ~osrotniaki'.ng. ¢ the;: .· ·. . · · workorders.or permits·. alterations compared to the vatu$ pf th~ bµi.ldihg at :ny. given time} I~ th.(ilabsen2~ bi such documentation, the defendant· cannot 1 me~t jts burden. However, des;JJe the f~ctthSjf . defendant spends. a great deal oftime analyzing the perceived .costof the ¢ renovations arid/or·· alterations performed to the .apartrrienti. that c.ost is not the applicable issu~ given: the factthat · , ¢ ' ' I I ,, '~ I , ' ~wner o~ a,M9ltiAleDwelHng to ~ake alteratiohswitHb ut. oorriplyihg 1 the Adm in. C.ode allows th$ with the Adniin. Co.de regardless ofcost; as long as th.e gen.era! safety. and pubUcwelfare are ' . ' >' ,' " . . ,, ' ' ,, , '\ , I not thereby endangered ($ee Admin. Code, .§ 27-120). The parties have no.t cited to a~d the C.ourt has not found any case la\,ywhich defines Page 8 of 12 [* 9] ; \ ,_,' \ ,I,,,,, · ·. "g.eneral safety or p~qUc. ~~If:~\~;,' '\yithiqt9~ '.c9htext of the,J:\t1iUfh. ~d~er;'.,;~i~~~'..~1~·f~~iff'l3 ~xperf .· ,,'i,,,,,,,':,"'' ,,i_ 1 i'',',, '" ,' ,, " ' ' ~ \ ', , ' ' ' ,, , ' '\ ' " ' , ' 'I 1 ' , ' ' I 1 '' ' , ' ,, ' , ,'1 ,' 1 I ' ,, \ , ' J ' ,, ' I ' ' ' ' :1 ', 1 'I ' ' ' ,, ' '' '' ' I ' ,' '' ' maintains. that .the.Ur:iihsui.a:ted sfei~frr:i: pipe wash;;i4arciou,s ~n ~' ~Mdang~rect.oth:~rs,:tflere'is'.ahi .· · . d I', < ,',,'"', '<'i'<:,',' ," ',,', ,," '></ ,,', ',~/,_',:;,-'', ','',''1 1 ',,'',,' not a partial ''''"1 '' ','',''-"" ,C,, ·Simi1~·r1y,:wliethe:r~or issue of fact thatc::arinot .be 'resolved on a motion fo,rsurnma:r.V]Cd9m$D't.· ,, ,,'),,'; (,,,',i,,.\,,' \ \ ,1, cover or In~ulation or a protectj~~f~rilJ cqul.c:J h~ve ~~~M'Utifi~edti:rp~otect the us.~r$. ' co~tact with'.the pJpe! y'tithobf:;m~a.itl~~ille f~n~t)onality of th.e' of the bathr00(11 from corning .ihto . heating system, is 'also. a .q·~estjoh Offacfthat ~lso cannot.be t~Sbl\1$~ d~/$1'.J(l')fo~ry';J'udgm~hf .·. ' ,,, , <I ': The.Court aiso.fi·rids'that ! ',, ' ' case, where the :Court ''I,', ' ', ,, ',,.', ' ., ', ' ' ' , ,,, ,, ' \ ,,,, th~r~ is .anissue o·f.fact:astb·wtiether the'·~f~fendant~as ', ', , ',<' ') ' ! < , ' '· '''\I':, ',i, "'",''/',',''>' I ;J, !) \, ' . ¢ ¢ · . ·. · ,'' ·. ·. hel~ that neither NtDL. §. ¢78(1) ·nor the ·corn~'.6hila~·Jmpos~s ·~·duty. upop in,st~llJaciiat6r.¢oyers;}~efendanfarguesth.at it also h~s no duty t6 ins~frite he<lt ..· , ···· ·'ri&er steam '' un$·afeh~ai riser pipe to. ~~iston the pr~~Jse~.· :bittgg to thE3 'Rf\;era negligent in aII.owing.an a. landlord to , ' ,I·'', ' pip~s.:(~·~e.Rf~~fa,. 7 t\J.'(~d:ar.535): ' ~p$cif@~Uy,fqund; that' ¢ . Yet the C9urtin ..BiVe(a plpes·be~ausepip~s we:r;.regUl~te~ ~>~~e·~~~iris.ir~t1v$. · :· Code and arguabl~ more dangerou$ than uncovered radiators, sirite "rid' oh~ kh6~? ttom ,' , 'I,' , " ' ' ' , , ', < ' , ' ' ' .... ,, Thus RivfilraO: does no~ stand ·for.the· propo~iticih th~at. li~ndlords ·need.·n$v~/prov.ide.· cov~.rs or.·i~:sul·~~l;nfor' pi'R~'S ¢ ~u·r.su~6tto: ¢ ¢. ¢. · . , dangerous by .m6$t p~ople, other. thar;ryoyng .children (id. ~fS.36): \ ' ,' the· Multiple . ' ', ,' \ ', ' I , ', ," '',"" ' ' '" . ' ', ' , ,, ', "' I ' ,,' ' 1 / 1 ,, 1' ,', ', '':', , " , ' , 'i,,, I 1 1,1'\,i," "-' ', 1 '/~ ' ' ·o.~el,'iin~ .Lavv(see,Hugh~s:v Qof7pOurse·· Residence>Cbrp. '~~2 Ab·~d.'4$;,;463 Il~i·. · \ ,, \ , ' ' ' , : ,' , ,'<,, ,,,,,- ', ' ' Cites.fofheFi;st'bepartment ¢c~s~.~fj~~adJy·We~t~~ 1kJ~pts;· .Dept·2000.)). ··Defondantalso Corp., which.cited Rtv:ererwhjle.rejepting a ¢qmm6n !aw r;equlremerittoir:lsulflte a stef!m;riser · I ',' M ', ' 1' ' ,,,''', ..... , ,', ,', ' '""\ ' ' ' ,,-,':;' .,_,' ,,.' ·,',',\·;'::"', ', '·1 ''· ,', ,',,'\I piper that carried water heateci to 165 .degrees (J6 AD3d 414, 4J5 [1·sf',Dept 2007]) ..·As .plaintiff . fsa~GS is readilY;·~istingUlSQ~ble fr~m this case as t~e subjecfpipeissi~nificantly·· . points out, ' ,' ,, \ ' ; , 1 "!', hotter than the 165.d~gr~e t~m.pe ratur~ ' "', : ,,_ ,' ', ,', "'' ',' ,., -:: ''·'' ( 1: ,, :,. ' ' ,, in Isaacs, and the pipe in'/sea'os ~~s,16c:$teci !behind toiletwhereas,h~re the pJalntiff'sexpertmeasur~d:the pipe asl9.cE1t~d ohl:y1~·in~hes in front of the toileqid. at4,14;,see H$llmanAff., photograph$ a~nexedt6: exhibits):' flitt~ermore the ' ' ' ', ' I ' '' (' < , '''< in Isaacs, there were no prior complaints or incidents regarding· the loCaUon of ',the si~al;n riser ,,, ' ,, ,, , ' ',, ' Page 9 of 12 ,, ',' : ' ,\' \ ' ' ',, 'II' 'i,1, ~ater",· whereas a ~~di~t6r.isiea~ilt:per~~ived.~~· , '" ,,'' ','''. radiators were ·.d.istinguishable ·rroni. looking at a. plpewheth~rit carries hot or cold ,(,' ,,' :,' 1 1' . ,' ,1,'', ,':','"1':, ',, [* 10] ' ', ,', " ,,' ', ,' \ ,' I \\'' ,',,,\,\''I ,,1',,,,: ," ,';';/,,, ,,,''j'',:,''', 'i, ''," ,' ,'1, _,,,,,-<1,1, ',,' ,':,,,,,'>',,,',I tln$i.pf~rhtiff :cl~i~.sth~t.it· was comrnoh fc)f,·p~rs¢A:~;J·~·rh~ke}n~'ClyeiM~~t> ·. pipe whereas.h.ere; ''1> "' ','1',,,1 contact withth~hot'pi,pei ¢·af"ld' ¢tfla'rf)hor,'complaints had he.en ffi.~·~~(id:)::< ,\,''',' ,, ,,,,1 ', ,' ' ¢ '... ¢.· i' ; ,< many c.~s.es have held, that a,l.andlord who fa.i'ls t9 . e~\/~ror ihsulat~· exp.o~.ed · In tact; ', \, ' , , " · ·' reasonably safe cori.dition (see f~ig,, Lewi$ v Orake.,.29f5 AD2d 482[~Hg,,()~pt 2002]; petaney.v First Concourse Mgt. , '' ' <:;o:, 27.5 A!J2d ..:2~~>[1 st Dept 2000]; Ffeming.\I ~fl~ 'York· C.ttY: Housing; · ' ' ' '' , ' ' '1 ',, I . ' ,,,,,I I., '1 '. ¢' \"' ,,- ,,I':,'',\>,';-',,'.',' Autt1ority, 262. Ab.2d.5.25.·[2rrd ·Qept .19.99]: .arown.·v.N~wyorl<':cJtY,.flqur;i~~AbM(}rity)j.25b.Aip2d · , ' I ' , ' ' " ' > ' ' ' , " '. , ' , ¢ ,' /,, ' , ; < ' , ' " , , ~ ' ,, , ,, '., I i , ' / ', I !> 1 ,' ' ., "" , ' 1 1' qefeh~;:mt'~ aH~mpts to dl$tinguish th~se cases ars una~ailing ...th~·~efendant · ¢ · arg.ues that the ~lainfiff'slrijury w~s nor~ f6reseea~l~ .risk that was proximately' caused by it$ ' 1998]). The I ' ' , ' ' ' ·", ', I , ' ,,, '' ' '' \ ' ' " ,' \ 'I' \'Ml '11 '' ', '' ' ' ' '1,, I:\;,':',',::,' :_ ,','-' ' ' \ ' . :':, \ : ¢ , ' '·,' I':,' ,, ':,,'' 1' ',',:'> :', ,,'',, :, ': ' ' I,:'':- \ ',, :, , claims thatit cou.ldn~t.Have fore$eei;rth~t. the plaintiff would s1,iffer:'an.:'epi:s(lde oJ:~ynC:op~.t!nd ·.. '' '' \ ', ':,',,,I ", :'1':1: i, ',, ,',' injJh~s·'ouetd·proiong~dcpntact with th.e heated pipe. lf.i~jrue :u,~t somec.d~rts' ··sustain .burn ' ' ,<' ',': i, ' :1,' have granted swml'.nary.judgmentJolf:mcifords in cases wh~re they dee;l'fled itwa$nof foreseeable th~t the::plMnflffw~ul~ sustain bum injuries after passing ~ut Pr losiQg., ·. . consciousness and leani~~ agaln~t. an.ex·pbsed heat pipe for.a lengU1y p~rfocl offirn~(~19e ~.g,. ' ,' ',,,\:,1 ''"'"':' ,,;',' \' ''', , I' ,, ', ',',. ,, ',,,: \',:,~-",'',,, < 1\1':1:>,:',,1',>, v&{qrdi, 25.9 Ferguson. vNew .¥drk Hpus. Auth. ', T7 .~D~d 706; 707 [2nd OepL20.10]; Banqhe't ' ~ , \ ,',:,,,', ' AD2d 434, 434 [1st Oepf 1999]).· 'Bbw~ver, there i~ ho eVid~hce h~re t~~t the pl~'ih'tift'wa~ in .· . prolonged contact .vviththe st.~am pipe a~d'Ahderson tndica.ted athis qep0sitioMthat ne never ' ' '' lost complete COh$CiousnesS'. ''',,',',, ',',.' I , ¢ ,' ,,,, ' ''' '', ' ,, , \ Additio~ally, th~ to.ilet was $0 clo. se to the pipe that AMdernon ¢ claims he was. still sitting. on thetdilsf when he. came ¢.into:cont~ct with th~ pipe ($ee Helln1an Aff., photographs annexed In Derdiatian ~Felix Contr. , the circumstances to exhibit.B). ' ; Ccirp,(S1 NY2d SO~ [1980]), the CourtofAppealsarticult1ted.·. ' ,'- ,': ' ' '' . ,,,' ' ' ' ' ',,,' Wh~re .a supersedin'g cause or other.factors inte~ven.e to break the nexus ¢ between a defehdant's heQligehce andplaintiff's inj~ry. 'Defdi91;fan inv?IVed a plaintiff~bowas . ·· Page 10 of 12 i ,' ',, ' ,: [* 11] 1,',1 ,,,',, :,1',, ' ' :'<,<',, ;,,;:',,i.';,,\:'i1:','(\1':''1:1i"''.:,:,' ,J,;,,'', I ... injured whe.n.a ve~.1¢.le'driv,en.. by'the deif~ndar:it's e.mplb.yee.ct~~:ryeg ¢[o.t:o ~··q~rr~trl.1¢~ion ·.~ite,,,~ndl ¢· ' ' ,' ' ' ',, ,' ',, 'i < ,: ''\,,' ,!',\';-_','.: ,:, ¢' >i", ': \,, ,\, " " ,',, < ' ¢,, ,: ',:,,,,/',!'::'': ',,',. ,'</,:'.,:''/,'(,'\'' ,' ¢/.~/<''i',:''.,';:,','>:1'.: ",:'.'' ,',',:',,',;ti,':'"" :l\:·,::: ¢", ¢,\'',i',, ,,",,, ,'1,'': '11' spilled hot off On'the plaintiff The aefendant driver had ~uffa:rs·ti ~ii iepilepf'ic::seiaure aauslng > 'i::· ' ¢' I > ¢, . . ,.· · ¢ ¢ . 1 . ¢ / ' i ,, 1 I ' /' ¢ ¢ ' ' ¢ ¢ ¢ i ¢ ¢' : · ¢·· ,;\: ,J ', ·:. ¢· · ¢ I him to lose conVhl,.Q{the·car. The Court held.that theJµry.·~()bl~ fi.ridll'!~f't~.e d~fenciant ·· t6· sequre the con$truction<sife (ii/at~1 ~).: Th~)f ourtfudher contractor was H9ble f;or: failih'g found that ''the precise 'nianri¢r of the. (a eel dent]. need , ¢ 1'' , '' ¢' ' ¢ , . h~t b~' ~htiqipateci 1' :and th$t the defendaht, ''\. ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ,,'' ¢ ¢ ,, ,,, ¢ : ' , ,,' contractor was not in.s:uJ~tecffrom· Habllity,~s a rn'atte.r,of law i;y{ri~r~.the'. geciec~!}i$k'and, · . . · :·· ··· . are fore.seeable:: becaus~a. "prime .hazard of subh d~~dd~·1bh:i$ :fhe.' ','> ',, ,·, , ' character of ·ihjurles. : ,'I' ,' ',' ',I >, possibility that a·d~ivefvviu ' ' ' ; ',, ' . I>, , ,' ,,,'" I',', ,'' "_-' ,, ~egli.gently enter the work site.'' (Id at 316.~C?fl),,: ~1;milatJ~',·,,[a]n s:er0e ?S a s~perseciing c~use 1 and relieve a~ ~4td~.bfrespbnsibiHty .' ' intervening act ma; noJ in~etv~hihg ~ct bccurdng is. the very same risk whibh·;enciers the. a,¢tor .· hegligent".(id. at~16}. .:·: Here, a jury could Jind that the fore;eeable risk .created byth~ defendaht.yvas the injur~: of a user of the ¢ bathroo~ 'from inadv~rtenf coritact with the steam pipe (flee Oel~n~y, 275A02d where th.e .risk ,,bf the ,(1 ' ' ',1 ' I ' ' 1 at 233). The.pr~~is~m~~n~rin ~hichthe plaintiff madeco~tact w.ith th~;pi·~.~;l1.~~dn9t.be ¢··. ,;"''"'' foreseeable, particulady ~hefi the pl;3lntlff had already allegedly complained I--\' ' I ,,, \ ,,, tcr. th~d ¬lfenqaot . >,-,'\':',:,,:':,!/' ,'('.,)1:,,'';_j1':Yt<,',1'1 ',I'< ', ') ',, ',, ¢· a.pout prior incidehts .wher:~· he and . .othershad ·ma.de ·inadvertent·Cont~d with:tH~'pJp~ .W111n,e · · · ' , :1'"',_,' ,, ,., ' '"' ' \ ' ' ' ,,, ,. using the·toilet .. ,ln,vJew,¢f·the ,foreseeability of ·accident~1.·· c~ntact vvi~b th~ be said, as a , ,, "' '' ',' ste~;~.~ipf;I; ·if~annof matterof 1la\f\/;thart~eplainfiff'ssynopi~. ep';sode· w~·san'~xtr~~{qirl:~nY i'~t~~e~ing', ' > ', , ' ' ' " . ' 1 '1 '" ''. 1 ' , 1 I ''1 \ ' ,, ,, ' act which breaks' th~ 1phain.t>fQat1satioM a.nd , ' '"' ,.' \ 'q 233·234). Thus, the coWd finds ,,,, ' ' ,, '1' , ' <\ : ' , ' ' ' ' 1 'I,, 1 ' , ,, ,,\ ',' ~, \, ma~~st~e risk c)f injµry u~fqre$~~~p·I~ (see :id. at ·.· ' ' : , < ' ' "' < ,' , , , ,, th~t·faetual .is.sue$ regardlngwhE!therthe defen9 ¬!.nt breached its common·lawduty t~ maintalnthe pr~rnis~sin·areasonably safe cohditlon anciWhethersuch breach proximately Gaused th.~ plaintif;f: ·~cdldent'mus.t be determinecf by Accordingly, the frier·offact. ·. defendant'~ m6ti~n for 'sumrna~y judgment is denied. As to defendant's motion seeking leave to amend its answer, the motion is stated above.. ·leave to amen<:! sha.llbe freely granted andinsofar a$ ' ,' I ! \ Page 11 of 12 grMted. ttie·<;J13~end~~t.has ' , ,,, ' . ¢ .· ' As .. ¢. · .· , , . · [* 12] /,/, circumstances:h.$r~. cl.crn9t ~arreir1t.th.eFdr\3stic measure; ofd~:~y.in.&tthe ~otldn, t(J ?~emf whibh would effectively render the.detenciantwithout ~ ciefsn$'.e·.toti.ab.lliif·arid ciart1ages ..ano wouJc;i ¢· . ) , < \ , I,/,, ' ' , , ''·,I I\ ' 'J '''"',''''"' ,,' p, violate NewYork's. policy.ofdispo:;;ing>pf actions ,on the ¢ merit;(s$e ', , ' ,' ' , ' ,, , ' > ,"'"' , ''· ' ¢' ,, ,1 , '<'I, ,,1 · '· ·.· ¢ · ,,1, '<, 1'' , 'i '1 W~ip:Stein~ NaU~~al .· :> . I ,,, ',, ,, AccordinglYrlt .is:·· . ¢· QRDER.FDlh~tdef.en~~nrs.~dtio~ for summary judgment . motion·s~quence 006, · pursuant to CP~R·'32.12 is·denied; and it·;s·f~rther; ORDeR~D·lh~t d~f~nda·~t'ifhloti6q to ~mehd the ans0~r. rnq~i9n~eqy:~rn:c~OO~ ..i$ ¢:· .. · · ·.·:.· . .·. ...·. ·. · .· ', , .' I: I 1\ , \ ' ',, ' '' " ;, : : ''i ','_ ; ,,' '.':, ' ,,'' ' ,, I ,' > , ' ' ' :,'::~'' :·,,,' <;' '' ,' 'I ,',', ' ,' >' I, : > ,. ':' ' "'I :'', ', ',I granted and th·e amended ¢ansWer in the propoe;ed .form annexed to the nibvlng pap~rs sryair l:>e .· ¢· · ¢ · ' deemed , ' ' ' \ ' served'.upoh'servic~ of a copy of this·· drder with notice .Of entry there:~:; .up;n ·the' ', I I , ' ' I ' '\ , ,,> ' ,', , ' ' 1 ,,>'' ',, plaintiff This '\ con~titwtes t~e Decision and . Order oJthe Court/ '·',, ,, ,,,,,,, ''',' '',' , i ','' , ' , \> ,, ' ,' , ', NON~FINAL OISPQSlllON /ooNoT PQST D ¢ReE;ReN·q~ ·/· ·. ....... . Check.poe; :0.F·INAL.iDISPOSITION .. ¢ c~eci< if aj?pr~·priate; ·.· . . .·. ·. ·.F ¢. ·..,> ¢ . ···.· .. ··· '> i .~ ,,', ·~ ·o·· . : .. ..:·· . .. I FEB 05 ~013· Page 12 of 12. . .· N.sw.v: . ""' .... · COUNTY· ·c··L::.:HJ, ¢. . ·. . . . ·· ·. '' ,, '' '' 1'''

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.