First published: Jul 2024
Damned If You Do, Damned If You Don’t
TAKEAWAY This is one of the very rare occasions where the board of a condominium had seemingly done everything right. Even so, they were sued. The board learned of a leak in a water main and fixed it within 10 days. In light of the fact that the board would have to meet, decide which plumber to hire, decide which of two repairs options the engineering firm presented, the 10 days seems reasonable. However, the one action the board did not take was the fatal one, and this resulted in the court rejecting the board’s request for a dismissal of the negligence claim. The court determined that the board’s failure to turn off the water (resulting in continued flooding onto the neighbor’s property) may have indeed been negligence. A more careful analysis of the entire situation, and how it would affect the adjacent property, might have saved the board and the condominium from a potentially costly claim of negligence.
HUANG V. FORT GREENE PARTNERSHIP HOMES CONDOMINIUM, ET AL
WHAT HAPPENED In the heart of brownstone Brooklyn, a four-story, eight-unit condo was located next to a brownstone. There was an entrance and walkway into the condominium’s grounds that separated the buildings. Ten years ago Mr. Huang, the owner of the neighboring brownstone, noticed water flowing into his basement through the wall adjacent to the condo's property. Two weeks later the NYC Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) discovered that the source of the water was a broken water service line on the condo’s property, and served the condo with a three-day notice to repair. Water continued to flow into Huang’s basement until the water main was repaired eight days later.
Huang commenced an action against the condo (as well as the condo board and management) for negligence, gross negligence, private nuisance, and trespass, and sought to recover damages for personal injuries as well as damage to property. The condo moved for summary judgment dismissing the entire complaint. The NY Supreme Court denied the motion, and the condo appealed.
IN COURT The appellate court modified the lower court’s order, reversing the lower court and dismissed all claims, except for a portion of the negligence claim. Since the condo had no actual or constructive notice of a defect and they could not be negligent of a condition that was not visible nor apparent, this portion of the claim was dismissed.
However, the court did not dismiss the negligence that might have taken place after the condo received the notice from the DEP. There was a delay in repairing the water main by several days in order to engage a plumber, and the condo did not shut off the water main during this period, thus allowing the water to continue to flow onto the property. This may have been negligence, and so the appellate court did not dismiss this negligence claim. COUNSEL: For the condominium, board of managers. and management company: George Evans AHMUTY, DEMERS & MCMANUS Christopher Parisi GALLO VITUCCI KLAR; For Trista Huang and Joshua Mattes: Bruno Codispoti, CODISPOTI & ASSOCIATES; JUDGE: Richard Velasquez
