New York Real Estate Lawyers New York OFFICE 225 Broadway, 8th Floor New York, NY 10007
Blog Home Attorney Profiles Firm News Community Newsletters Clients Rights Contact Us

« WANNA BE A CIVIL COURT JUDGE? | Main | 20 YEARS TOO LATE »

THIS CASE DOESN'T HOLD WATER

In LaTronica v. F.N.G. Realty Corp., Robert LaTronica filed suit against his landlord, F.N.G. Realty Corp. (“FNG”), to recover damages for personal injuries he incurred as a result of a plumbing malfunction. (LaTronica supposedly suffered second- and third-degree burns when a “sudden burst of scalding water emitted from the cold water faucet in his bathtub.")

When FNG filed a motion to dismiss the case, the Bronx County Supreme Court sided with LaTronica. On appeal, the Appellate Division, First Department, found that LaTronica had “failed to raise a triable issue of fact whether [FNG] had notice of the alleged defect.”

Deposition testimony established that LaTronica had complained that the hot water was “too warm,” but not that hot water would jettison from the cold water faucet. He also could not prove the existence of a defect. While LaTronica offered an expert witness, the AD1 found that individual's analysis to be “without probative value, as the expert inspected [LaTronica’s] bathroom two years after the incident and did not inspect the boiler.” (Nor could the expert establish that FNG kept the water at an unsafe temperature.)

While FNG had received violation notices from the New York City Department of Buildings, those notices were dated between 1989 and 1995, and did not relate to the specific condition about which LaTronica complained. Thus, the AD1 concluded that the notices were “too remote in time to raise a triable issue of fact.”

Apparently, LaTronica’s own actions also impacted the case. LaTronica admitted that he “[put] his feet into the water after checking the temperature.” That, according to the AD1, “broke the causal link between any alleged negligence by [FNG] and [LaTronica’s] injuries.”

Does that last part make sense? We understand LaTronica’s claim to involve a “sudden burst of scalding water.” So what did the tub’s temperature have to do with anything?

To download a copy of the Appellate Division’s decision, please use this link: LaTronica v. F.N.G. Realty Corp.

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.nyrealestatelawblog.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/1910

Comments

This decision is just plain wrong:

a. why would the expert be required to inspect the boiler if the source of the hot water burst could be located in the bathroom plumbing?

b. if there has been no alteration to the bathroom's plumbing, an inspection 2 years after the incident should still have probative value concerning possible causes of the hot water burst.

c. It is totally bizarre for the court to say the plaintiff's dipping his feet into the tub broke the chain of causation.

Gines:

We were uncomfortable with the decision as well.

But, as far as LaTronica is concerned, it's all water under the bridge ... so to speak.

Onward!

If you guys keep this up, you're both going to get into hot water with the A.D.1!!!

Post a comment

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)


Search


Subscribe










Categories