Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
TOWER NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY as subrogee of One World Wireless, Inc., also known as Verizon, Subrogor, Plaintiff–Respondent, v. Joseph A. LUGO et al., Defendants, Keith Kancar et al., Defendants–Appellants.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Paul A. Goetz, J.), entered on or about July 26, 2023, which denied the motions of defendants Keith Kancar and Abby Martinez (together, defendants) for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously reversed, on the law, with costs, and the motions granted. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment dismissing the complaint.
Plaintiff's subrogor sustained property damage from a flood caused by a water leak in the kitchen sink of the apartment occupied by defendants. Contrary to defendants' argument, plaintiff's claim against them is not barred by collateral estoppel. Defendants' liability for negligence based on res ipsa loquitur, as the occupants of the apartment at the time of the flood, was not determined in the prior action brought by plaintiff's subrogor. The complaint in that action was dismissed as against Joseph A. Lugo, the out-of-possession owner of the apartment and the only defendant in that action (see Tower Natl. Ins. Co. v. Lugo, 199 A.D.3d 502, 154 N.Y.S.3d 423 [1st Dept. 2021]). Defendants' putative obligations as tenants were not adjudicated in the prior action (see Matter of Seligson v. Board of Mgrs. of the 25 Charles St. Condominium, 138 A.D.3d 432, 29 N.Y.S.3d 292 [1st Dept. 2016]).
Nevertheless, the court should have granted defendants' summary judgment motions as plaintiff failed to raise an issue of fact concerning the applicability of the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. The record demonstrates that defendants did not have the requisite exclusive control over the plumbing underneath the apartment's kitchen sink which caused the leak (see e.g. Desosa v. Ortiz–Osorio, 227 A.D.3d 461, 461–462, 208 N.Y.S.3d 617 [1st Dept. 2024]). Instead, the sublease, by which Lugo leased the apartment to defendants, prohibited them from making any alterations to the apartment, whereas the proprietary lease by which Lugo leased the apartment gave him the responsibility to maintain the plumbing. This is consistent with defendant Martinez's testimony that if there were any maintenance issues, defendants would raise them with Lugo.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: 2650
Decided: October 01, 2024
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)