Smith v. Kixby Hotel

2025 NY Slip Op 00068 · Appellate Division, First Department · January 7, 2025 · No. Index No. 154733/21 Appeal No. 3405 Case No. 2024-01864

Summary

This New York Appellate Division decision affirms the trial court's denial of the defendant hotel's motion for summary judgment and to dismiss the complaint. The appellate court reasoned that the motion was premature given the early stages of discovery, highlighted authentication deficiencies in the hotel's submitted evidence, and concluded that the hotel retained enough control over the premises to potentially bear a legal duty. Furthermore, the court found that the plaintiff sufficiently pleaded a cause of action under CPLR 3211(a)(7).

Court
Appellate Division, First Department
Writing for the Court
Singh, J.P.; Kapnick; Scarpulla; Pitt-Burke; O'Neill Levy
Jurisdiction
New York (Appellate Division, First Department)
Decision date
January 7, 2025
Docket number
Index No. 154733/21 Appeal No. 3405 Case No. 2024-01864
Procedural posture
Appeal from Supreme Court, New York County order denying motion to dismiss and summary judgment
Precedential value
published
Parties
The Kixby Hotel, 45 West Hotel Limited Partnership v. Curtis S. Smith, Bowery Residents Committee
Disposition
affirmed

Topics

summary judgmentmotions to dismissnegligencecivil procedureevidence

Practice areas

civil proceduretortsreal estateevidence

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the defendants' motion for summary judgment was premature given the early stage of discovery.
  2. Whether The Kixby Hotel, as an out‑of‑possession landlord, owed a duty of care to the plaintiff.

Holdings

  1. The motion for summary judgment was premature and therefore denied.
  2. The hotel retained a degree of control over the premises and therefore owed a duty of care to the plaintiff.

Factual background

Curtis S. Smith alleged that he was assaulted on premises owned by The Kixby Hotel. The hotel argued it had no duty because it was an out‑of‑possession landlord. The plaintiff asserted that the hotel retained control through on‑site staff, emergency contact duties, and the Hotel Use Agreement.

Procedural history

The Supreme Court, New York County denied the defendants' motion to dismiss and/or for summary judgment. The Appellate Division reviewed that order and affirmed the denial.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…