senate Bill S81

2013-2014 Legislative Session

Provides that limited liability for persons held jointly liable shall not apply to parties held liable for failing to provide reasonable security

download bill text pdf

Sponsored By

Archive: Last Bill Status - In Committee


  • Introduced
  • In Committee
  • On Floor Calendar
    • Passed Senate
    • Passed Assembly
  • Delivered to Governor
  • Signed/Vetoed by Governor

do you support this bill?

Actions

view actions (2)
Assembly Actions - Lowercase
Senate Actions - UPPERCASE
Jan 08, 2014 referred to judiciary
Jan 09, 2013 referred to judiciary

S81 - Bill Details

See Assembly Version of this Bill:
A411
Current Committee:
Law Section:
Civil Practice Law and Rules
Laws Affected:
Amd ยง1602, CPLR
Versions Introduced in Previous Legislative Sessions:
2011-2012: S127, A335
2009-2010: S7673, A8644A

S81 - Bill Texts

view summary

Provides that limited liability for persons held jointly liable shall not apply to parties held liable for failing to provide reasonable security or failing to provide security required by federal, state or local law, rules or regulations.

view sponsor memo
BILL NUMBER:S81

TITLE OF BILL:
An act
to amend the civil practice law and rules, in relation to limited
liability of persons jointly liable

PURPOSE:
To provide that limited liability for persons held jointly liable
shall not apply to parties held liable for failing to provide
security as required by law, rule, or regulation

SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS:
Section one amends section 1602 of the civil practice law and rules by
adding a new subdivision (14) to provide that limitations on
liability will not apply to any person who owns, manages, and/or
controls property or provides security for said property who fails to
provide security as required by law, rule, or regulation.

Section two provides the effective date and that the law shall apply
to causes of action commenced or pending on or after such date.

JUSTIFICATION:
Where a tenant is raped by an intruder who gained access to the
tenant's building through a defect in the building's security, New
York is among a small number of states that asks a jury to apportion
liability between the rapist and the negligent landlord who failed to
keep the building secure. This leads to an unintended and bizarre
result when the victim attempts to recover damages from the negligent
landlord for the personal injury suffered at the hands of the rapist.

Under current law, if the negligent landlord is found to be 50% or
less liable for the injury, the landlord's liability is limited to
his "equitable share" based on the "relative culpability" of each
person contributing to the total liability. The only time this
limitation, on liability of the landlord is not imposed is when the
other person contributing to the liability, i.e. the rapist, cannot
be found.

Accordingly, in the case of the raped tenant, a jury will likely find
the rapist to be more than 50%, if not 100%, liable for the victim's
injury, freeing the landlord from liability, even though the landlord
failed to maintain adequate security at the time of the assault.

There is another curious consequence that results from the application
of this limitation on liability. Current law provides that the
limitation on liability is not applied where the other person
responsible for the victim's injury cannot be found. So in the case
of the raped tenant,
if the rapist cannot be found, the limitation on liability of the
landlord will not be imposed and the victim may be able to recover
fully for damages against the landlord for his failing to provide
reasonable security. If, on the other hand, the rapist is found, the
victim will likely recover little, if any, damages from the landlord
since the limitation of liability will be applied based on the
landlord's "relative culpability." The landlord's relative


culpability will likely be deemed to be small as compared to the
rapist's culpability, and almost all of the liability imposed, on the
rapist.
One may surmise that the odds of recovering damages from the rapist
are slim.

Current law, then, forces the victim to choose between cooperating with
law enforcement to find her attacker and bring him to justice and not
seeking to identify her assailant so that she can recover damages
100% from the landlord in her personal injury action. Prior to 2002,
New York courts generally held that the law requiring apportionment
of liability did not apply to personal injury actions involving a
negligent actor (Le., a landlord) and an intentional wrongdoer (i.e.,
a criminal who commits assault). Yet the Court of Appeals in 2002
required allocation of liability, noting that the legislature would
need to modify the law to clarify its intent regarding apportionment
in these types of cases.

This bill will make clear that allocation of liability will not apply
to person who owns, manages, and/or controls property or provides
security for said property for failing to provide security as
required by law, rule, or regulation.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY:
2011-12: S.127
2010: S.7673/A.8644-A

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:
None.

EFFECTIVE DATE:
This act shall take effect immediately.

view full text
download pdf
                    S T A T E   O F   N E W   Y O R K
________________________________________________________________________

                                   81

                       2013-2014 Regular Sessions

                            I N  S E N A T E

                               (PREFILED)

                             January 9, 2013
                               ___________

Introduced  by  Sen. PERALTA -- read twice and ordered printed, and when
  printed to be committed to the Committee on Judiciary

AN ACT to amend the civil practice law and rules, in relation to limited
  liability of persons jointly liable

  THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, REPRESENTED IN SENATE AND  ASSEM-
BLY, DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:

  Section 1. Section 1602 of the civil practice law and rules is amended
by adding a new subdivision 14 to read as follows:
  14. NOT APPLY TO ANY PERSON WHO OWNS, MANAGES, AND/OR CONTROLS PROPER-
TY  WHO  IS FOUND TO HAVE FAILED TO PROVIDE SECURITY AS REQUIRED BY LAW,
RULE OR REGULATION.
  S 2. This act shall take effect immediately and shall apply to  causes
of action commenced or pending on or after such date.






 EXPLANATION--Matter in ITALICS (underscored) is new; matter in brackets
                      [ ] is old law to be omitted.
                                                           LBD01105-01-3

Comments

Open Legislation comments facilitate discussion of New York State legislation. All comments are subject to moderation. Comments deemed off-topic, commercial, campaign-related, self-promotional; or that contain profanity or hate speech; or that link to sites outside of the nysenate.gov domain are not permitted, and will not be published. Comment moderation is generally performed Monday through Friday.

By contributing or voting you agree to the Terms of Participation and verify you are over 13.