81 N.Y.2d 982 (1993)
A landlord can be held liable for injuries sustained on an unsecured portion of a building if the use of that area and the resulting harm were reasonably foreseeable, and the landlord failed to exercise reasonable care to prevent the harm.
Summary
Lesocovich sued 180 Madison Avenue Corp. after falling from a flat roof owned by the corporation, alleging negligence due to the lack of a railing. The plaintiff was a guest of a tenant who used the roof for recreation with access through a bedroom window. The Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division’s grant of summary judgment to the landlord, finding triable issues of fact regarding foreseeability and the applicability of statutes and building codes. The court emphasized the landlord’s duty to exercise reasonable care to prevent foreseeable harm, and the potential applicability of building codes based on the extent of alterations and repairs made to the property.
Facts
Plaintiff Lesocovich fell from a flat roof of a building owned by defendant 180 Madison Avenue Corporation, sustaining severe injuries. The roof covered a one-story section of a three-story building. The plaintiff was visiting a tenant who accessed the roof through a bedroom window for recreational purposes. The window screen was removed, and cinder blocks were present on the roof when the tenant moved in. The tenant had not sought permission to use the roof but had done so previously. The landlord never explicitly prohibited the tenant’s roof access.
Procedural History
The plaintiff sued, alleging negligence. The defendant moved for summary judgment, which the motion court denied. The Appellate Division reversed and granted summary judgment to the defendant, finding the plaintiff failed to raise a question of fact regarding foreseeability. A dissenting opinion argued triable issues existed regarding foreseeability and statutory violations. The Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division’s decision, reinstating the denial of summary judgment.
Issue(s)
1. Whether the defendant exercised reasonable care to prevent the use of or access to the roof and porch.
2. Whether it was foreseeable that persons might use the roof and porch for outdoor recreational purposes.
3. Whether, under the applicable law, the failure to install a railing or parapet wall constitutes a violation.
4. Whether the alterations and repairs made to the premises brought it within the purview of the Code.
Holding
1. No, because the record presents triable issues of fact regarding the precautions taken by the landlord to prevent roof access.
2. Yes, because a reasonable jury could conclude that the landlord should have foreseen tenants and guests using the roof for recreation.
3. Undetermined, because the applicable law and facts surrounding the roof’s characteristics must be determined at trial.
4. Undetermined, because there are issues of fact whether the extent of alterations to the property invoked the State Uniform Fire Prevention and Building Code.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals held that the defendant failed to make a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, citing Winegrad v. New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851, 853. The court emphasized that summary judgment requires eliminating material issues of fact, referencing Zuckerman v. City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562 and Sillman v. Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp., 3 NY2d 395, 404. The court found triable issues concerning the landlord’s reasonable care to prevent roof access, the foreseeability of recreational use, and whether the failure to install a railing violated applicable law. The court noted the evidence of a substantial loan and extensive repairs, questioning whether these brought the premises under relevant statutes or codes. The court reasoned that reasonable persons could disagree on whether the landlord should have foreseen the roof’s recreational use and the risk of falls due to the absence of a railing. The dissent in the Appellate Division highlighted the tenant’s testimony and the extensive repairs as evidence of foreseeability and potential code violations. The Court of Appeals agreed, reversing the grant of summary judgment.