7 N.Y.3d 530 (2006)
A landlord has no common-law duty to provide or install radiator covers in a home, even when children reside there, unless such a duty is imposed by statute, regulation, or contract.
Summary
This case addresses whether a landlord has a duty to provide radiator covers in an apartment where young children live. A three-year-old child was severely burned when he climbed onto an uncovered radiator in his bedroom. The parents had requested radiator covers multiple times, but the landlord refused due to cost. The New York Court of Appeals held that landlords do not have a common-law duty to provide radiator covers and that the New York City Administrative Code did not require them in this instance. The decision emphasizes that imposing such a duty is a legislative or regulatory matter, balancing safety concerns with the costs of rental housing.
Facts
Aaron Rivera, a three-year-old, sustained severe burns after climbing onto an uncovered radiator in his parents’ apartment. The landlord and management company knew young children lived in the apartment and that the radiators were uncovered. The parents had repeatedly requested radiator covers from the defendants, citing safety concerns, but the requests were denied due to cost considerations.
Procedural History
The Supreme Court denied the defendants’ motion for summary judgment, finding a question of fact as to whether the landlord breached a duty to maintain the premises safely. The Appellate Division reversed, dismissing the complaint, holding that the landlord had no duty to provide radiator covers. The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division’s order.
Issue(s)
Whether a landlord has a common-law or statutory duty to provide or install radiator covers in an apartment where young children reside.
Holding
No, because neither common law nor the New York City Administrative Code imposes such a duty on landlords in this situation.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court rejected the plaintiffs’ argument that Basso v. Miller created a broad duty of “reasonable care under the circumstances” that would require landlords to install radiator covers. The court clarified that Basso eliminated the distinction between invitees, licensees, and trespassers, but did not abolish all common-law rules governing landowner liability. The traditional rule is that landlords are not liable for dangerous conditions on leased premises unless a duty to repair is imposed by statute, regulation, or contract.
The Court stated, “While the common-law rule of nonliability of a landlord to a tenant was not abolished by Basso, we have recognized significant modifications of that duty by statute and contract.” The Court found that Multiple Dwelling Law §78 requires multiple dwellings to be kept in good repair but does not extend to requiring radiator covers absent a defect in the radiator itself.
The Court also rejected the argument that New York City Administrative Code § 27-809 required radiator covers. The section mandates insulation for accessible piping carrying fluids exceeding 165 degrees Fahrenheit. The court reasoned that radiators are distinct from “piping” within the meaning of the Code, pointing to other sections that differentiate between the two. Moreover, the Court highlighted the practical implications of such a decision, stating: “The decision whether radiator covers must be supplied by landlords is thus left to legislators and regulators, who are in the best position to balance the harm prevented by this safety measure against its cost—a cost which, if imposed on landlords, becomes part of the overall cost of rental housing.”