27 N.Y.3d 1166 (2016)
A landlord is liable for failing to repair a dangerous condition on leased premises if they have notice of the condition, assume a duty to make repairs, and reserve the right to enter and inspect the premises.
Summary
A tenant, Santiago, sued her landlords for negligence, claiming toxic mold in her apartment caused her illness. The New York Court of Appeals held that the landlord was not liable because the tenant failed to provide sufficient notice of the hazardous mold condition. The court reasoned that the tenant’s complaints about a small leak and dripping air conditioners were insufficient to put the landlord on notice of a potential mold problem, especially since she vacated the apartment before notifying the landlord of the mold condition. The Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court’s grant of summary judgment to the landlords.
Facts
In April 1999, Santiago noticed a small, wet spot on her dining room wall and reported it to the doorman. A handyman found a tiny crack in a steam pipe behind the wall. After the steam was turned on in October, the exact location of the crack was found and repaired. Santiago also complained about dripping air conditioners during the summer months, which building staff addressed by changing filters. Santiago began feeling ill in the fall or winter of 1999. In July 2001, doctors advised her to have her apartment tested for environmental hazards. Testing revealed toxic mold, and she vacated the apartment that month. She notified the landlords of the mold condition in October 2001.
Procedural History
Santiago sued the landlords for negligence, among other claims. The Supreme Court granted summary judgment to the landlords, finding insufficient notice of the toxic mold condition. The Appellate Division affirmed, holding that the evidence was insufficient to put the landlords on notice of a hazardous mold condition. The Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal and certified the question of whether the Supreme Court’s order, as affirmed by the Appellate Division, was properly made.
Issue(s)
Whether the tenant provided sufficient notice to the landlords of a dangerous condition (hazardous mold) to establish liability for negligence.
Holding
No, because the tenant failed to raise any triable issues of fact as to whether the landlords created, or had notice of persistent water leaks that foreseeably could result in, a hazardous mold condition.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals applied the rule that a landlord may be liable for failing to repair a dangerous condition if they have notice of it, assume a duty to make repairs, and reserve the right to inspect and repair the premises, citing Chapman v. Silber, 97 N.Y.2d 9, 19 (2001). The court emphasized that the plaintiff bears the burden of proving that the landlord had notice of the dangerous condition and a reasonable opportunity to repair it, citing Juarez v. Wavecrest Mgt. Team, 88 N.Y.2d 628, 642 (1996). The court found that the tenant’s complaints regarding a small crack, which was promptly repaired, and dripping air conditioners were insufficient to put the landlords on notice of a foreseeable hazardous mold condition. The court emphasized that the tenant never complained that the air conditioners dampened her carpet or that the areas smelled musty or moldy. “Here, even applying plaintiff’s proposed notice standard— whether defendants created, or had notice of persistent water leaks that foreseeably could result in, a hazardous mold condition—plaintiff failed to raise any triable factual issues.”
The fact that the tenant vacated the apartment three months before notifying the landlords of the claimed mold condition further weakened her case. Therefore, the Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court’s decision, granting summary judgment dismissing the complaint.