From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Poree v. N.Y.C. Hous. Auth.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
May 19, 2016
139 A.D.3d 528 (N.Y. App. Div. 2016)

Opinion

1174, 105187/11.

05-19-2016

Skylar POREE, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. NEW YORK CITY HOUSING AUTHORITY, Defendant–Respondent.

Law Office of Certain & Zilberg, PLLC, New York (Michael Zilberg of counsel), for appellant. Herzfeld & Rubin, P.C., New York (Sharyn Rootenberg of counsel), for respondent.


Law Office of Certain & Zilberg, PLLC, New York (Michael Zilberg of counsel), for appellant.

Herzfeld & Rubin, P.C., New York (Sharyn Rootenberg of counsel), for respondent.

SWEENY, J.P., RENWICK, ANDRIAS, KAPNICK, KAHN, JJ.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Doris Ling–Cohan, J.), entered February 13, 2015, which granted defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Summary judgment was properly granted in this action where plaintiff was injured when he attempted to extinguish a fire in a Christmas tree in his apartment by grabbing the burning tree with his arms. The record demonstrates that defendant satisfied its statutory duty under Administrative Code of City of N.Y. § 27–2045(a)(1) to provide a functional smoke detector in the apartment when occupancy was commenced, and that under Administrative Code § 27–2045(b)(1), (2), the obligation to maintain the smoke detector was on the tenant.

Plaintiff's argument that defendant breached a duty to him by negligently performing its annual inspection of his apartment and failing to note that the smoke detector was no longer operational, is unavailing. Liability under this theory may be imposed only if defendant's conduct placed plaintiff in a more vulnerable position than he would have been in had defendant done nothing (see Heard v. City of New York, 82 N.Y.2d 66, 72, 603 N.Y.S.2d 414, 623 N.E.2d 541 [1993] ; Piazza v. Regeis Care Ctr., L.L.C., 47 A.D.3d 551, 553, 852 N.Y.S.2d 53 [1st Dept.2008] ). Here, plaintiff provided no evidence that he relied on defendant's inspection of his apartment to ensure the functionality of the smoke detector, and plaintiff's mother testified that inspectors hardly ever tested the smoke detectors. Accordingly, there could be no reliance on defendant to ensure that the smoke detector was operational.

Furthermore, any negligence by defendant was not a proximate cause of plaintiff's injuries. Plaintiff acknowledged that he had time to exit the apartment without injury, but elected to try to extinguish the flames by grabbing and shaking the burning tree (see Alloway v. 715 Riverside Dr., 298 A.D.2d 148, 149, 748 N.Y.S.2d 6 [1st Dept.2002] ; Acevedo v. Audubon Mgt., 280 A.D.2d 91, 96, 721 N.Y.S.2d 332 [1st Dept.2001].


Summaries of

Poree v. N.Y.C. Hous. Auth.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
May 19, 2016
139 A.D.3d 528 (N.Y. App. Div. 2016)
Case details for

Poree v. N.Y.C. Hous. Auth.

Case Details

Full title:Skylar POREE, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. NEW YORK CITY HOUSING AUTHORITY…

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.

Date published: May 19, 2016

Citations

139 A.D.3d 528 (N.Y. App. Div. 2016)
30 N.Y.S.3d 633
2016 N.Y. Slip Op. 3955

Citing Cases

Beadell v. Eros Mgt. Reality

During this time, police officers engaged with decedent and attempted to persuade him to come back into his…

Beadell v. Eros Mgmt. Reality

2d 164, 985 N.E.2d 1225 [2013]). That is, plaintiffs’ proximate cause argument necessarily fails because it…