KISS THIS SANATASS!

In Sanatass v. Consolidated Investing Co., Inc., Christopher Sanatass was injured while installing an air conditioning unit in a building owned by Consolidated Investing.

C2 Media (C2) -- a tenant in Consolidated's building -- agreed not to make any changes to the premises without the owner's written consent. Yet, C2 secretly hired Sanatass's employer to install an air-conditioning unit and, because of faulty lifts, Sanatass was "nearly crushed."

Sanatass sued Consolidated under a New York State law which imposes "strict liability" on building owners when laborers employed to perform services are injured. Consolidated argued that since its tenant didn't have permission to make these repairs, C2 was solely responsible for Sanatass's damages. The New York County Supreme Court agreed with that position, as did the Appellate Division, First Department.

On appeal to our state's highest court, the New York State Court of Appeals looked to the Labor Law's legislative history and found the statute clearly intended to hold building owners responsible for most on-site accidents which result in a laborer's injuries. As a result, Consolidated was unable to "escape strict liability" even though it had no "notice or control over the work ordered by its tenant."

In a dissent, Judge Smith rejected such a "literal, mechanical" application of the law and was of the opinion the majority was inappropriately treating the building owner as an "insurer" and wrongfully holding it responsible for the tenant's misconduct.

The law's "strict liability" standard is quite frigid, wouldn't you agree?

To download a copy of the Court of Appeals' decision, please use this link: Sanatass v. Consolidated Investing Co., Inc.

Posted by Lucas A. Ferrara, Esq. on July 1, 2008 8:25 AM | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.nyrealestatelawblog.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/2352

Comments

Since Judge Smith practiced law for 35 years before becoming a judge (i.e. had a real job), he recognizes the exaltation of form over substance (a theme in recent cases posted) and rejects it -- probably knows a Quad is a motor vehicle, too.

Posted by: Gines Pasamonte | July 1, 2008 9:40 AM

Ginesy, when r u gonna kiss my [DELETED], luver?

Posted by: ALesbo | July 1, 2008 5:37 PM

First, GP, I think that you ought to resolve your issues with Lesbo one time by finally giving her what she desires. Regarding Sanatass kicking ass, I have to say as a tenant lawyer, I've searched my brain and I can't understand the reasoning here. The landlord did not know about the work, did not authorize it, had a lease that prohibited it. But the landlord is on the hook for the damages when things go wrong!

Posted by: Steven De Castro | July 2, 2008 11:06 AM

I like this DeCastro guy. He's got style, he's got flair, and he's there.

Posted by: ALesbo | July 2, 2008 2:27 PM

Hate to break it to you, Steve. But ALesbo stole that line from the NANNY!

She was working in a bridal shop in Flushing, Queens,
Til her boyfriend kicked her out in one of those crushing scenes.
What was she to do, where was she to go
She was out on her fanny.

So over the bridge from Flushing to the Sheffield's door,
She was there to sell make up but the father saw more,
She had style, she had flair, she was there,
That's how she became the Nanny.

Who would have guessed that the girl we described
was just exactly what the doctor prescribed?

Now, the father finds her beguiling, watch out C.C.,
The kids are actually smiling, such joie de vivre
She's the lady in red when everybody else is wearing tan.
The flashy girl from Flushing, the Nanny named Fran.

Posted by: Lucas A. Ferrara, Esq. | July 2, 2008 2:41 PM