As we explained in our case summary, the question in this case was whether an out-of-possession property owner’s non-delegable duty under New York City law to remove snow and ice from the owner’s sidewalks overrides the owner’s immunity from tort liability under Putnam v. Stout, 38 N.Y.2d 607 (1976). The Court (Rivera, J.) held that city law overrides the property’s owner’s state-law immunity.
The Court based its decision on the plain text of Administrative Code 7-210, which imposed a duty on every “owner of real property abutting any sidewalk” to maintain the sidewalk in a reasonably safe condition. “Every owner,” the Court held, meant every owner–even out-of-possession owners. Indeed, Administrative Code 7-210 made an exception for some property owners but not out-of-possession owners. This showed that if the city “meant to exclude a class of owners, it knew how to do so”; and indicated that the decision not to exclude out-of-possession owners was intentional.
The Court also relied on other indicators of legislative intent. For instance, a separate provision enacted with Administrative Code 7-210 required all property owners to purchase liability insurance to cover their duty under city law. There would be no need for that coverage, the Court noted, if an out-of-possession owner was not subject to liability under Administrative Code 7-210. And elsewhere, the Administrative Code imposed a similar but lesser duty on non-owners to remove snow and ice, suggesting that the decision to impose a broader liability on owners was calculated.
The Court also cited legislative history and purpose in support of its decision. The history of Administrative Code 7-210 showed that it was enacted to transfer liability to property owners because they were in best position to remedy sidewalk defects. Imposing liability on them would incentivize safety precautions by those best situated to take precautions.
The Court made clear that nothing in its decision prohibited an owner from shifting the responsibility for maintaining its sidewalks to another party. But the owner could not thereby avoid its liability. The owner would still be liable for any failure by the party contracted to maintain the property, with an indemnification action against them where appropriate.
Return to the case page for He v. Troon Management.