In a recent ruling, the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York addressed a workplace injury case that has implications for employee safety and landlord responsibilities. The court's decision affirmed a lower court's ruling regarding liability in the case of Batchilly v. 610 8th Ave. Corp., Index No. 25213/14, Appeal No. 6678, Case No. 2025-06188, filed on August 6, 2026. This ruling affects the plaintiff, Mohammed Batchilly, who was injured while working at a retail store, and the defendants, including the property owners and the store's management.
The case centers around an incident where Batchilly, an employee of a retail adult video store known as Blue DVD Xlentvibes, fell through a hole in the floor while moving equipment. The hole had been created by the removal of an internal stairwell connecting the first and second floors of the building. The court's decision is significant because it clarifies the responsibilities of landlords and tenants regarding safety and maintenance in commercial properties.
The parties involved in the case include Mohammed Batchilly, the plaintiff, who is seeking damages for his injuries, and the defendants, 610 Eighth Avenue Corp., the property owner, and Madaleo Realty Corp., the property manager. The store, operated by Moshe Malka, was leased from the property owners. The dispute arose after Batchilly's fall, leading him to file a lawsuit against the owners and the store management. The case reached the appellate court after the Supreme Court in Bronx County denied motions for summary judgment from both sides.
The Supreme Court's ruling, which took place on June 9, 2025, denied Batchilly's motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability and also denied the property owners' motion to dismiss the complaint. The court did, however, grant Batchilly's request to amend his bill of particulars, allowing him to provide more details about the alleged violations of building codes. This amendment was deemed necessary to clarify the claims against the property owners.
The Appellate Division, which included Judges Kennedy, Scarpulla, Mendez, Rodriguez, and Rosado, upheld the lower court's decisions. The court ruled that the property owners, as out-of-possession landlords, could still be held liable under certain conditions. The ruling stated, "An out-of-possession landlord is generally not liable for negligence with respect to the condition of property after the transfer of possession and control to a tenant unless the landlord is either contractually obligated to make repairs and/or maintain the premises or has a contractual right to reenter, inspect and make needed repairs at the tenant's expense." This highlights the importance of contractual obligations in determining liability.
Furthermore, the court found that the property owners retained a contractual right to re-enter the premises and were responsible for structural repairs. This means that even though the store was leased to a tenant, the owners still had responsibilities regarding safety and maintenance. The ruling also noted that Batchilly's expert testimony regarding building code violations was not sufficient to establish a clear violation that would hold the owners liable.
The impact of this ruling is significant for both landlords and tenants in New York. It clarifies the responsibilities of property owners regarding safety and maintenance in commercial leases. Landlords must be aware that they can still be held liable for injuries that occur on their properties, even if they have leased the space to a tenant. This case sets a precedent for future disputes involving workplace injuries and landlord responsibilities.
Going forward, this ruling may encourage landlords to ensure that their properties comply with safety regulations and building codes to avoid potential liability. Tenants, on the other hand, may feel more empowered to hold landlords accountable for unsafe conditions in leased spaces. The decision reinforces the importance of maintaining safe environments for employees and customers alike.
As for what’s next, it is unclear if the defendants will appeal the ruling to a higher court. The case may proceed to trial if the parties cannot reach a settlement. Additionally, there are no related cases pending that have been mentioned in the court filing. This decision provides a clearer understanding of the legal responsibilities involved in commercial leases and workplace safety.