Premises Liability Lawyer in New York City
Representing people injured by unsafe property conditions — falls, inadequate security, elevator and escalator accidents, dog bites, falling objects, and other hazards — under New York Real Property Law and controlling Court of Appeals precedent.
Overview
What This Practice Covers — and Who Needs It
Premises liability is the branch of personal injury law that holds property owners and occupiers accountable for injuries caused by unsafe conditions on their property. When a landlord fails to maintain a stairwell and a tenant falls, when a building owner ignores broken lighting and a visitor is assaulted in a dark lobby, when an elevator malfunctions and drops or traps occupants, when a dog with a history of aggression is allowed to attack a visitor, when a ceiling collapses, or when a child is injured by defective playground equipment — each of these is a premises liability matter. The legal framework is different from motor vehicle accidents; the no-fault threshold that limits lawsuits for car accident injuries does not apply to premises liability claims.
Yazdi Law represents people injured by unsafe property conditions across New York City and the surrounding counties — Manhattan, Brooklyn, Queens, Bronx, Staten Island, Nassau County, Suffolk County, and Westchester. Our practice covers the full range of premises liability claims: falls caused by dangerous conditions, inadequate security assaults, elevator and escalator accidents, dog bites and animal attacks, falling objects, swimming pool accidents, fires caused by code violations, lead paint exposure, and injuries at commercial establishments, apartment buildings, hotels, restaurants, and public spaces. Representation is available in English and Farsi. Premises liability cases are handled on a contingency fee basis — we do not collect a fee unless we recover compensation for you. Call (917) 565-7286 for a free consultation.
Legal Foundation
The Legal Framework
New York premises liability law is built on a single controlling principle established by the Court of Appeals: property owners and occupiers owe a duty of reasonable care under the circumstances to everyone foreseeably on their property. The framework governs when property owners are liable for injuries and what injured parties must prove to recover compensation.
The duty of reasonable care under Basso v. Miller
In Basso v. Miller, 40 NY2d 233 (1976), the New York Court of Appeals abolished the traditional common-law distinctions between invitees, licensees, and trespassers — under the old rules, property owners owed different duties depending on why the injured person was on the property. The Court replaced this rigid framework with a single unified standard: property owners and occupiers owe a duty to ‘act reasonably to maintain safe conditions in view of all circumstances,’ with ‘the likelihood of plaintiff's presence’ as the primary factor in determining foreseeability. This means a New York property owner's duty is assessed by the same reasonable-care standard applied in ordinary negligence cases — not by whether the injured person was a business customer, a social guest, or a trespasser.
The elements of a premises liability claim
To recover in a New York premises liability case, the injured party must prove four elements: (1) the property owner or occupier owed a duty of reasonable care; (2) the owner breached that duty by failing to maintain the property in a reasonably safe condition; (3) the breach caused the injury; and (4) the injured party suffered damages. For conditions the property owner did not personally create, the plaintiff must also prove that the owner had either actual notice of the dangerous condition (the owner knew about it) or constructive notice (the owner should have known about it because the condition existed long enough that reasonable inspection would have discovered it).
Actual and constructive notice under Gordon v. American Museum of Natural History
The controlling New York standard for constructive notice comes from Gordon v. American Museum of Natural History, 67 NY2d 836 (1986). Under Gordon, a property owner has constructive notice of a dangerous condition only where the condition was visible and apparent, and existed for a sufficient length of time prior to the accident to permit the owner to discover and remedy it through reasonable inspection. A condition that appears suddenly — a spill that occurred moments before the injury, a piece of falling masonry with no prior signs of deterioration — typically will not support constructive notice because the owner had no reasonable opportunity to discover it. Conversely, conditions that persist for hours, days, or longer generally support constructive notice because reasonable property maintenance would have identified them. The duration and visibility requirements are heavily litigated and are often the central factual dispute in premises liability cases.
Types of hazards covered
Premises liability encompasses a broad range of hazards beyond the familiar slip-and-fall. Typical claims at Yazdi Law include falls caused by defective stairs, missing handrails, inadequate lighting, or uneven surfaces; elevator and escalator accidents (sudden drops, entrapment, door malfunctions, abrupt stops); inadequate security where a foreseeable assault or crime occurred (particularly in residential buildings with poor lighting, broken locks, or prior incidents); dog bites and animal attacks, especially where the owner knew of the animal's aggressive tendencies; falling objects from buildings, construction sites, or retail displays; injuries caused by ceiling collapses, falling plaster, or deteriorated fixtures; swimming pool accidents in residential and commercial settings; lead paint exposure in residential buildings under Multiple Dwelling Law § 27-2056; fires caused by building code violations or landlord neglect; and injuries on defective playground equipment. Each category has specific legal considerations, but all operate within the Basso reasonable-care framework.
Landlord liability under Real Property Law and Multiple Dwelling Law
Residential landlords have specific duties beyond general premises liability. Under New York Real Property Law § 235-b, residential landlords implicitly warrant that the premises are fit for human habitation — a warranty of habitability that encompasses structural integrity, heating, plumbing, and freedom from hazards affecting safety and health. Multiple Dwelling Law § 78 requires owners of buildings with three or more residential units to maintain the premises in good repair. These statutory duties create additional bases for liability in tenant injury cases beyond the general Basso reasonable-care standard, and they shift the analysis away from whether the tenant had notice of the condition to whether the landlord met their affirmative maintenance obligations.
Sidewalk and snow-and-ice liability
Under NYC Administrative Code § 7-210 (effective September 2003), the owner of abutting real property (not the City of New York, with limited exceptions) is liable for injuries caused by the failure to maintain the public sidewalk in a reasonably safe condition — a significant shift in New York City premises liability law. Property owners are required to clear snow and ice from sidewalks within specific time windows under NYC Admin Code § 16-123. The ‘storm in progress’ doctrine provides that owners are not required to clear snow or ice during an active storm, but they must act within a reasonable time after the storm ends. Sidewalk injuries are typically addressed in our dedicated slip and fall page.
Negligent security
Property owners in New York have a duty to take reasonable steps to protect visitors and residents from foreseeable criminal acts on the property. Liability for negligent security typically arises where (a) prior similar crimes occurred on or near the property, placing the owner on notice of the risk; (b) the owner failed to take reasonable preventive measures (adequate lighting, working locks, security cameras, doormen or security guards where appropriate); and (c) an assault, robbery, or other foreseeable crime caused injury. Residential landlords in buildings with security issues face particular exposure. Negligent security cases require careful investigation into the property's history, comparable area crime data, and the specific security measures in place at the time of the incident.
Comparative negligence under CPLR § 1411
Under CPLR § 1411, New York follows pure comparative negligence — an injured party's recovery is reduced by their percentage of fault but is not barred entirely even if they are predominantly at fault. If a jury finds the injured party 40% at fault and the property owner 60% at fault, the injured party still recovers 60% of the total damages. This is more favorable to injured plaintiffs than contributory negligence states that bar any recovery if the plaintiff bears any fault. Defendants in premises liability cases frequently argue comparative negligence, particularly in slip-and-fall and fall-from-height cases; strong evidence of the hazard's severity and the owner's failure to address it counters these arguments.
The serious injury threshold does not apply
Premises liability cases are not subject to the ‘serious injury’ threshold under Insurance Law § 5102(d) that governs motor vehicle personal injury claims. The no-fault framework under Insurance Law Article 51 applies only to motor vehicle accidents. This means premises liability plaintiffs can pursue claims for any injury caused by the defendant's negligence — there is no statutory threshold the injury must meet before the case can proceed. This is a meaningful difference from car accident cases and is often misunderstood by prospective clients who have read about no-fault in the context of auto injuries.
How It Works
The Process, Step by Step
A premises liability case at Yazdi Law proceeds through the stages below. Most cases take between 12 and 24 months from engagement to resolution, though complex cases involving liability disputes, multiple defendants, or significant injuries can extend longer. Cases involving severe injuries with substantial medical documentation often resolve through settlement; cases with contested liability may proceed to trial.
Initial consultation and case evaluation
The first consultation covers the circumstances of the injury, the nature and extent of injuries sustained, the property where the incident occurred, who owns and controls the property, and the documentation you already have (medical records, photographs, witness information, incident reports). We assess the case's strengths and challenges candidly — premises liability cases depend heavily on evidence of the dangerous condition and the owner's notice of it, and some cases have stronger evidence than others. Consultations are free and confidential, and we do not charge unless we recover.
Investigation and evidence preservation
Premises liability cases are won and lost on evidence. Immediately after engagement, we investigate to preserve evidence before conditions change. This includes photographing the scene (ideally the same day if possible), obtaining surveillance video (many properties have cameras, and footage is frequently overwritten within 30-60 days), identifying and interviewing witnesses while memories are fresh, obtaining incident reports from the property owner or manager, reviewing building and code violation records from the NYC Department of Buildings or relevant agencies, obtaining prior complaint records where relevant (especially for negligent security and recurring conditions), and coordinating medical documentation for your injuries.
Determining the proper defendants
Identifying the proper defendants is often more complex than it appears. The owner of record, the managing agent, the tenant or lessee who controls the space, and in some cases the contractor who created a condition can all bear liability. NYC properties frequently involve layered ownership — individual co-op shareholders, condo associations, sponsors, LLCs, and trusts. The party responsible for maintenance is not always the party shown on the deed. We investigate ownership and control carefully through property records, lease agreements, and property management disclosures to ensure all responsible parties are named as defendants.
Medical documentation and damages development
Thorough medical documentation is essential in premises liability cases. We coordinate with your treating physicians to ensure medical records accurately reflect the accident's cause and your ongoing condition. For serious injuries, we may retain medical experts to evaluate permanency, future medical needs, and impact on earning capacity. Damages in premises liability cases can include past and future medical expenses, past and future lost wages, pain and suffering, loss of enjoyment of life, and in cases of permanent injury, the reduced earning capacity and lifestyle impact. Proper documentation at the medical stage materially affects settlement and verdict outcomes later.
Filing suit and discovery
For cases that don't resolve pre-suit, we file a Summons and Verified Complaint in Supreme Court (or in some cases Civil Court, depending on the damages sought). Service is completed within 120 days under CPLR 306-b. The statute of limitations for most premises liability claims is three years from the date of injury under CPLR § 214(5); claims against New York City or other municipal entities require a Notice of Claim within 90 days under General Municipal Law § 50-e and filing within one year and 90 days under GML § 50-i. Discovery involves document production, interrogatories, depositions of the plaintiff, defendants, property managers, witnesses, and in some cases expert witnesses.
Settlement and trial
The substantial majority of premises liability cases settle before trial. Settlement can occur at various stages — after demand letters, following pre-suit investigation, during discovery, after pendente lite motion practice, at court-ordered settlement conferences, or on the eve of trial. Insurance carriers evaluate cases based on liability strength and damages documentation. Well-prepared cases with clear liability evidence and thorough damages development produce better settlement results. Cases that don't settle proceed to jury trial, where the jury determines both liability and damages after hearing evidence from both sides.
What to Watch For
Common Challenges and How We Address Them
Premises liability cases face recurring evidentiary and legal challenges. Prepared counsel anticipates and addresses these proactively.
Proving notice
The single most contested issue in most premises liability cases is whether the property owner had actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition. Defendants often claim the condition appeared suddenly, that no one complained before, or that reasonable inspection would not have found it. We counter these arguments with documentary evidence — maintenance logs showing the condition had been noted, prior incident reports, witness testimony about how long the condition existed, photographs documenting wear consistent with long-standing conditions, and complaint records from other tenants or visitors. In some cases, proving notice requires subpoenas to third parties (building management, abutting businesses, NYC agencies) and depositions of building personnel.
The storm in progress doctrine
For snow and ice injuries, defendants frequently invoke the storm in progress doctrine — the rule that property owners are not required to clear accumulation during an active storm. This defense succeeds where the injury occurred during or shortly after the storm. We counter it with weather data showing the storm had ended well before the injury, or with evidence that the dangerous condition was caused not by the storm but by poor maintenance practices (improper drainage, prior ice accumulation, or inadequate clearing of a prior storm).
Open and obvious conditions
Defendants sometimes argue that a dangerous condition was ‘open and obvious’ and therefore the property owner had no duty to warn. New York law recognizes that obviousness can affect comparative negligence but does not automatically bar recovery — property owners still have a duty to maintain safe conditions even when a hazard is visible. Whether a condition is open and obvious, and whether that observation affects the ultimate determination of fault, is typically a jury question.
Contested ownership and control
When multiple parties have some connection to the property (owner, lessee, managing agent, maintenance contractor), defendants often point fingers at each other, each arguing that another party had the responsibility to address the condition. We name all potentially responsible parties as defendants and let discovery develop the record of who actually controlled and was responsible for the condition. Lease agreements, management contracts, and maintenance records typically establish the allocation of responsibility.
Pre-existing conditions and injury causation
Defendants and their insurers frequently argue that the plaintiff's injuries were pre-existing or unrelated to the incident. For clients with prior injuries or medical conditions, we coordinate with treating physicians to document the difference between the pre-existing condition and the new injury caused or exacerbated by the fall or accident. This is particularly important for clients with prior back, neck, or joint issues where the defendant will argue the current pain is unrelated to the incident.
Free Consultation
Injured on someone's property? No fee unless we recover compensation for you.
Contact Us NowPricing
Costs and Fees
Premises liability cases at Yazdi Law are handled on a contingency fee basis — there is no attorney fee unless we recover compensation for you. The contingency percentage is set at engagement and detailed in a written retainer agreement consistent with Rule 22 NYCRR § 1215.1 of the New York Court Rules. We typically advance case expenses (investigation costs, filing fees, expert witness fees, medical records fees, deposition transcript costs) during the case, with those expenses reimbursed from the settlement or verdict along with the attorney fee. No fees or costs are owed if there is no recovery.
Initial consultations are free. We do not charge to evaluate your case, discuss the legal framework, or advise whether representation makes sense for your situation. We represent clients regardless of immigration status; clients do not need to be U.S. citizens to bring premises liability claims in New York. Representation includes case evaluation and strategic planning, investigation and evidence preservation, medical coordination, demand letter preparation and pre-suit negotiation, litigation through filing, discovery, motion practice, settlement conferences, mediation where appropriate, and trial representation when settlement is not achievable.
The value of a premises liability case depends heavily on the severity of the injuries, clarity of liability, economic damages (medical expenses and lost wages), and non-economic damages (pain and suffering, loss of enjoyment of life). We do not promise specific outcomes or settlement amounts at the consultation stage — case values depend on facts developed during the representation. We do provide candid assessment of the case's general strengths and challenges so clients understand what to expect.
FAQ
Frequently Asked Questions
What makes a premises liability case different from a slip and fall case?
How long do I have to file a premises liability lawsuit in New York?
Who can I sue if I was injured in an apartment building?
Do I have a case if I was injured in a crime at someone's property?
Schedule a Free Consultation
If you were injured by an unsafe condition on someone's property in New York City or the surrounding counties, call Yazdi Law at (917) 565-7286 or request a consultation online. Our Midtown Manhattan office is at 261 Madison Avenue, Suite 1035, two blocks from Grand Central Terminal. Consultations are free and confidential, there is no fee unless we recover, and representation is available in English and Farsi. Early engagement matters — evidence preservation is time-sensitive, witnesses' memories fade, surveillance video is typically overwritten within 30-60 days, and deadlines for claims against the City of New York and other municipalities are strict. Do not wait to contact counsel.
Request a Consultation
Share your details and we'll respond within one business day.
Disclaimer: The information on this page is for general informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice. New York premises liability law evolves through case law and statutory amendment; the principles discussed reflect the state of the law as of the date of publication. Every case is unique; prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome; and outcomes depend on specific facts, evidence, and circumstances. Contacting Yazdi Law does not create an attorney-client relationship. Attorney Advertising.