Case Name: Abraham Kuperschmid, Respondent, v. Tillie Tauszig, Appellant
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1925-02-27
Citations: 124 Misc. 548
Docket Number: 
Parties: Abraham Kuperschmid, Respondent, v. Tillie Tauszig, Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Miscellaneous Reports
Volume: 124
Pages: 548–551

Head Matter:
Abraham Kuperschmid, Respondent, v. Tillie Tauszig, Appellant.
Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department,
February 27, 1925.
Landlord and tenant — action against landlord for damages suffered by flow of water from roof of building — action for negligence properly brought in absence of agreement by landlord to make repairs — landlord did not surrender control of roof of premises — landlord negligent — plaintiff cannot be charged with contributory negligence.
Plaintiff’s action for negligence against the defendant landlord for damages suffered by reason of a leaky roof was properly brought, in the absence of any agreement on the part of the landlord to make repairs, and it is held that the landlord did not surrender control of any part of the roof of the building leased to the plaintiff; that the landlord had ample notice of the condition of the roof and was negligent; and that the plaintiff cannot be charged with any act of omission constituting contributory negligence.
Gxjy, J., dissents, with opinion.
Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Municipal Court of the City of New York, Borough of Manhattan, Second District, in favor of the plaintiff, entered upon the verdict of a jury.
Jenks & Rogers [Gustavus A. Rogers of counsel], for the appellant.
Lippman & Sachs [ Nathan I. Sachs of counsel], for the respondent.

Opinion:
Per Curiam:
We are of the opinion (1) that the defendant did not surrender control of any part of the roof of the building; (2) that no matter which of the several possible findings of fact be adopted as to how the leak occurred, the defendant was shown to have been at fault in failing properly to guard against the leak that occurred, after ample notice; (3) that the plaintiff is not to be charged with any act of omission constituting contributory negligence. The action was properly brought for negligence, there having been no agreement by the defendant, landlord, to repair. (Loucks v. Dolan, 211 N. Y. 237.) We do not feel called upon to express any general opinion as to when a lessee of premises is required, in order to avoid giving grounds for the charge of contributory negligence, to give up the use of any part of the demised premises for which he is paying rent, or to take affirmative steps to protect his property against defects attributable to the landlord. Confining ourselves strictly to the facts of this case, we are of the opinion that the plaintiff did not fail in his duty in any respect.
Judgment affirmed, with twenty-five dollars costs.
Bijur and Mullan, JJ., concur; Guy, J., dissents with opinion.