Watson v. City of New York

Full title: ALVIN WATSON, Appellant, v. CITY OF NEW YORK, Respondent

Court: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Jun 22, 1992

184 A.D.2d 690 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)

585 N.Y.S.2d 99

Opinion

June 22, 1992

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Harkavy, J.).

Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, the motion is denied, the complaint is reinstated, and a new trial is granted, with costs to abide the event.

The plaintiff was injured when a vacant building owned by the defendant collapsed on top of him. The building, located at 460-1/2 Hart Street in Brooklyn, had previously been sealed, and was awaiting demolition. The plaintiff had stepped into the building to get out of the rain when it collapsed.

We find that the trial court erred in refusing to instruct the jury that the Administrative Code of the City of New York § 26-235 imposed a duty on the defendant to conduct reasonable inspections of the premises to ensure that the building remained sealed (see, Administrative Code of City of N Y § 26-235; Beauchamp v. New York City Hous. Auth., 12 N.Y.2d 400; Runkel v City of New York, 282 App. Div. 173; Runkel v. Homelsky, 286 App. Div. 110 1, affd 3 N.Y.2d 857; Raylite Elec. Corp. v. City of New York, 30 A.D.2d 38, 40, affd 24 N.Y.2d 785). Consequently, it was error to set aside the jury verdict and to dismiss the complaint on the ground of insufficient evidence of actual or constructive notice to the defendant that the building had become unsealed, as the issue of notice is irrelevant in light of the defendant's duty to conduct reasonable inspections (see, Meyer v. State of New York, 92 Misc.2d 996, 1000).

In view of the above determination, we need not address the plaintiff's remaining arguments. Sullivan, J.P., Lawrence, Ritter and Santucci, JJ., concur.