BENJAMIN v. WOODNER CO, N.Y. App. Div., Judgment, Law, casemine.com

Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Advocates

Sidney S. Bobbe of counsel ( Maxwell M. Booxbaum, attorney), for appellant. William F. McNulty of counsel ( Bachkoff, Miller Steger, attorneys), for respondent.

Judges

Per Curiam.

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

This appeal arises from a wrongful death and conscious pain and suffering action initiated by Irene Benjamin, as administratrix of the estate of Yves Benoit, deceased, against Jonathan Woodner Co. The underlying accident occurred on June 30, 1963, when the decedent suffered serious injuries due to a failure to keep the premises in good repair, specifically involving a bar across a window that gave way. The decedent and appellant were tenants in a multiple dwelling where the defendant retained control over common areas. The decedent died six days after the accident. The Supreme Court, New York County, dismissed the complaint at the close of plaintiff's case, prompting this appeal.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the plaintiff presented a prima facie case of actionable negligence sufficient to submit the issue to a jury.
Whether the landlord breached the statutory duty under the Multiple Dwelling Law § 78 to keep the premises in good repair, proximately causing the accident.
Whether the dismissal at the close of plaintiff's case was appropriate given the evidentiary standards applicable in wrongful death actions.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

The plaintiff contended that the evidence presented established a prima facie case of negligence by the defendant landlord.
The plaintiff argued that the failure to maintain the bar across the window constituted a breach of the landlord's duty under the Multiple Dwelling Law.
It was urged that the evidence warranted submission of the case to a jury rather than dismissal.

Respondent's Arguments

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the respondent’s arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Lowenhar v. Commercial Outfitting Co., 260 App. Div. 211, aff'd 285 N.Y. 671	Landlord's liability for injuries caused by failure to keep premises in good repair, requiring notice (actual or constructive).	Referenced to establish the landlord's duty and liability conditions under the Multiple Dwelling Law.
Kraus v. Birnbaum, 200 N.Y. 130	At the close of plaintiff’s case, plaintiff is entitled to every inference reasonably drawn from the facts.	Applied to emphasize that dismissal at plaintiff’s case stage requires viewing facts in plaintiff’s favor.
Noseworthy v. City of New York, 298 N.Y. 76	Lower standard of proof in wrongful death actions compared to cases where injured person testifies.	Used to highlight the evidentiary standard applicable to the plaintiff in this wrongful death case.
Shines v. W. Y. Realty Corp., 259 App. Div. 596, aff'd 284 N.Y. 647	Standard for establishing a prima facie case of negligence warranting jury submission.	Cited by plaintiff in support of the argument that the case should have gone to the jury.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court acknowledged the landlord’s statutory duty under the Multiple Dwelling Law § 78 to maintain the premises in good repair and the general rule that landlords must keep common areas reasonably safe. It recognized that plaintiff, as the decedent’s administratrix, was entitled to all reasonable inferences at the close of her case and that the evidentiary burden in wrongful death cases is less stringent than in cases where the injured party testifies.

Although the court was not fully convinced that the plaintiff had conclusively established a prima facie case, it found that there was sufficient evidence to raise questions regarding the foreseeability of the accident and the circumstances of how it occurred. Given these uncertainties and in the interest of justice, the court determined that the plaintiff should be afforded another opportunity to further develop the evidentiary record through a new trial.

Holding and Implications

The court’s final decision was to REVERSE the judgment dismissing the complaint and DIRECT A NEW TRIAL on the merits. Costs were ordered to abide the event.

This ruling affords the plaintiff a further opportunity to present evidence and develop the case, without establishing new precedent. The direct effect is to reinstate the case for trial rather than affirm dismissal.

Show full summary ...

IRENE BENJAMIN, as Administratrix of the Estate of YVES BENOIT, Deceased, Appellant, v. JONATHAN WOODNER CO., Respondent.

Per Curiam.

Plaintiff appeals from a judgment entered April 30, 1964, dismissing the complaint at the end of plaintiff's case.

This action for damages for wrongful death and conscious pain and suffering arose out of an accident which occurred June 30, 1963, in which plaintiff's intestate suffered serious injuries from which he died six days later. Plaintiff's intestate and plaintiff, husband and wife, were tenants in the premises, and it is claimed that the accident happened because of a breach of duty owed the plaintiff's intestate by reason of a failure to keep the premises in good repair. It is claimed that this failure, which involved a bar across a window which gave way, proximately caused the accident.

The place of the occurrence was a portion of the premises in a multiple dwelling used in common by the tenants of which defendant owner retained control. The general rule is that the landlord must maintain such portions in a reasonably safe condition. And under section 78 Mult. Dwell. of the Multiple Dwelling Law it is specifically provided that "[e]very multiple dwelling, including its roof or roofs, and every part thereof * * * shall be kept in good repair." Any breach of this obligation proximately causing injuries may result in liability where notice, actual or constructive, is proved (but, see, Lowenhar v. Commercial Outfitting Co., 260 App. Div. 211, affd. 285 N.Y. 671).

Two principles must be kept in mind. The action having been dismissed at the close of plaintiff's case, plaintiff is entitled to "the advantage of every inference that can properly be drawn from the facts presented" ( Kraus v. Birnbaum, 200 N.Y. 130, 133). And in a death action plaintiff is not held to as high a degree of proof as if the injured person were present to describe the occurrence ( Noseworthy v. City of New York, 298 N.Y. 76, 80). If contributory negligence be a defense, it is to be pleaded and proven by defendant (Decedent Estate Law, § 131).

Plaintiff urges that on the evidence presented it clearly proved a prima facie case of actionable negligence which warranted submission of the issue to the jury. ( Shines v. W. Y. Realty Corp., 259 App. Div. 596, affd. 284 N.Y. 647.) While this court is not in complete accord with that view, the court is unanimous in concluding under the circumstances of and evidence presented in this case, that in the interests of justice a new trial is required. Here there is some proper evidence of how the accident occurred and there is sufficient to raise a question as to the foreseeability of the accident. Plaintiff should be afforded a further opportunity to develop these aspects.

The judgment appealed from should be reversed on the law and in the interests of justice, and a new trial directed, with costs to abide the event.

BREITEL, J.P., VALENTE, McNALLY, STEVENS and EAGER, JJ., concur.

Judgment unanimously reversed on the law and in the interests of justice, and a new trial directed, with $50 costs to abide the event.

BENJAMIN v. WOODNER CO