In Utkan v Szuwala , Deniz Efe Utkan sued her landlord for her child's burn damages.
Utkan alleged that, prior to the incident, she notified the owner -- Jenina Szuwala -- of a dangerous condition and had requested that the apartment's radiators be covered.
Szuwala argued she wasn't responsible for protecting the tenant's kids from radiator related injury, and asked for the case's dismissal. Utkan countered that the exposed radiator violated a state law -- known as the warranty of habitability -- which is intended to ensure that residential units are fit for habitability and free of conditions which would threaten life, health, or safety.
When the Kings County Supreme Court denied the landlord's dismissal request, an appeal to the Appellate Division, Second Department, followed.
The AD2 was of the view that neither state law nor the governing lease shifted the duty to the building owner to protect children from exposed radiators. (In other words, the responsibility to safeguard the kid from this particular hazard remained with Utkan.)
Isn't anyone going to get fired up over this?
To download a copy of the Appellate Division's decision, please use this link: Utkan v Szuwala