First published: Dec 2024
Having Plans Isn’t Enough
TAKEAWAY The court’s decision shows just how crucial meticulous documentation can be when accidents happen. While it’s common for buildings to have maintenance schedules and inspection protocols, the Downtown Condominium case reveals that simply having these plans isn’t enough—you need to prove they’re being followed. The building’s resident manager testified that the deck was supposed to be checked twice daily, but he couldn't provide records showing these inspections actually happened. This gap in documentation proved costly when the lawsuit came, providing a stark reminder that in today’s legal environment, if you didn’t write it down, it might as well not have happened. For board members and building staff, this means creating clear paper trails for everything from routine inspections to weather-related responses. When snow is coming, document your preparations. When ice forms, record your removal efforts. Keep detailed logs of who checked what and when. Take photos. Save security footage. These records might seem tedious to maintain, but they can make the difference between winning and losing a lawsuit.
EVON HOLANDER V. DOWNTOWN CONDOMINIUM BY PHILIPPE STARCK
WHAT HAPPENED On Jan. 30, 2019, Evon Holander slipped and fell on black ice while walking on an outdoor deck on the 7th floor of 15 Broad Street, a condominium building in Manhattan. The deck was uncovered and had a decorative water fountain in the center. The black ice was invisible to the eye and had not been reported to building staff. Holander sued the condo’s sponsor, its management company, and the condo association. The key issue in the lawsuit was the weather condition at the time of the fall.
IN COURT All the defendants moved for summary judgment to dismiss the complaint, but it was granted only to the sponsor and management company. The court determined that the employees of the condominium were responsible for maintaining the deck in a reasonably safe condition.
Although the condominium established that it did not create the condition and that it did not have actual notice of the black ice, as it had not been reported by anyone, it was not able to avoid its liability based on constructive notice of the condition. In support of its motion, the condominium tendered expert affidavits to show that there was a “storm in progress,” which relieves an owner’s obligation to address snow or ice conditions until a reasonable time after a storm concludes. However, it also submitted Ms. Holander’s deposition testimony in which she stated that it had not rained or snowed during the relevant period of time.
In keeping with prevailing case law that summary judgment cannot be granted where the moving party’s own submission reveals the existence of a triable issue of fact, the court denied summary judgment to the condominium. Whether or not there was a “storm in progress” will have to be determined at trial.
COUNSEL for Evon Holander STEPHEN STRAUSS Law Offices of Stephen A. Strauss; for the sponsor, management company and condominium MINDY R. RICCA Manson & McCarthy; Justice John J. Kelley
