Case ID: ny-st-rep_28/html/0627-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Pratt, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Wilhelmine Sterger, App’lt, v. J. Wyckoff Van Siclen, Resp’t.
    
      (Supreme Court, General Term, Second, Department,
    
    
      Filed December 9, 1889.)
    
    Landlord and tenant—When landlord not liable for defects in premises.
    When the landlord has engaged the tenant to repair a defect on the premises, and has paid therefor, he is not liable for injuries to a visitor of the tenant caused by such defect.
    Appeal from judgment dismissing complaint.
    Action to recover for injuries sustained while upon defendant’s premises. Defendant was the owner of the house No. 68 Schenck avenue, Brooklyn, which was occupied by a Mrs. Leopold. While plaintiff was visiting Mrs. Leopold and upon the back stoop a portion thereof broke and plaintiff was injured.
    There was evidence that the tenant, Mrs. Leopold, had agreed to repair the stoop and that defendant had allowed for the same by a deduction from her rent.
    
      Eoswell H. Carpenter (A. H. Dailey, of counsel), for app’lt; A. Bimis, Jr., for resp’t.
   Pratt, J.

It sufficiently appears that in May previous to the accident defendant engaged the tenant to repair the defect in the stairs, and remitted two dollars from the rent of that month to compensate the tenant for doing that work.

The defect was a trifling one, and the two dollars would seem to be ample.

It seems clear that as between the tenant and those claiming under him no action would thereafter lie against the landlord for injuries occasioned by that defect. The duty to repair seems to have been assumed by the tenant.

The plaintiff was a visitor to the family of the tenant, and was injured while upon such visit. Upon this state of facts we are of opinion that the authorities in this state do not sustain the plaintiff’s claim for damages.

It follows that the complaint was properly dismissed, and the judgment must be affirmed.

Barnard, P; J., and Dykman, J., concur.