Plaintiff, Mendel Weiss, et. al.(čWeissî), was an employee at a furniture factory in the Bronx. Weiss sustained serious injuries when he fell down a factory elevator shaft that he claimed was maintained in violation of applicable safety requirements. Defendant, New York City Industrial Development Agency (čNYCIDAî), was the owner of the factory building. NYCIDA obtained ownership of the building from third-party defendant K&B Furniture Warehouse (čK&Bî) following a sale and leaseback agreement in 1986. The parties agreed that NYCIDA had no involvement in or responsibility for the operation, maintenance, or control of the building.

In his action against NYCIDA, Weiss alleged that, as čownerî of the building, NYCIDA was liable for failing to comply with various elevator safety regulations promulgated by the Board of Standards and Appeals pursuant to Labor Law § 255. NYCIDA moved for dismissal, arguing that responsibility for observance of elevator safety regulations fell solely to the operator of the factory and that a non-operating owner was not statutorily liable. Supreme Court granted NYCIDAçs motion to dismiss and the Appellate Division affirmed. Having granted leave, the Court of Appeals affirmed.

No. Labor Law § 316(1) limits responsibility for elevator safety to factory operators.

State of the Law Before Weiss

The New York Board of Standards and Appeals promulgated a regulation that holds a building owner responsible for observing certain elevator safety regulations. Although New York Labor Law Statute § 255 likewise requires that factory elevators be safely maintained and operated, § 316(1) places liability for nonobservance of factory safety provisions solely on "the person operating the factory." Thus, the Court faced a conflict between a law and a regulation.

It is a fundamental principle of administrative law that the Legislature's word trumps an agency's regulation. The New York Court of Appeals has consistently applied this notion. See, e.g., Finger Lakes Racing Ass'n v. New York State Racing and Wagering Bd., 45 NY2d 471, 480 (1978). In a case with similar facts, the Court affirmed an Appellate Division ruling that a non-operating owner need not comply with the regulation. See Liebowitz v. Denison Realty Corp., 277 N.Y. 670 (1938). However, the Court had never before explicitly ruled on this issue.

Effect of Weiss on Current Law

The Court held that Defendant-building owner was not statutorily liable for injuries the Plaintiff sustained in a factory elevator shaft when the building owner had no involvement in or responsibility for the operation, maintenance, or control of the building. The Court held that the Regulation, NYCRR 8 -1.12[1], imposing liability on non-operating owners, is invalid insofar as it conflicts with Labor Law § 316(1), which imposes liability on operators. Pursuant to this case, a non-operating owner of a building, who is not a tenant-factory owner, will not be held liable for injuries resulting from Article 11 violations. Furthermore, the Court will not enforce any regulation to the extent that it conflicts with § 316(1).

In deciding whether to apply Regulation NYCRR 8-1.12[1] or Labor Law § 316(1), the Court reasoned that holding the non-operating owner responsible would contradict the clear language of § 316(1), the controlling statute. The Court reiterated that an agency cannot promulgate rules that contradict the will of the Legislature, and if an agency regulation does not comply with an applicable statute, the statute must prevail.

The Court also stated that the Legislature's intent in enacting § 316(1) was to confine Article 11 responsibility for elevator safety to factory operators. They supported this conclusion by comparing § 316(1) and § 316(2). In enacting § 316(2), the Legislature provided that non-operating owners are responsible for complying with Article 11 only if their buildings are tenant-factory buildings. In § 316, the Legislature went out of its way to distinguish between tenant-factory owners and other factory owners. This distinction would be meaningless if defendant, a non-tenant-factory owner, was held liable.

Unanswered Questions

In finding non-operating owners absolved from liability under Labor Law § 316(1) the Court based its decision on the fact that NYCRR 8-1.12[1] conflicts with this prevailing statute. Although it is fundamental that controlling statutes should prevail over regulations, the Court fails to address the practical implications of such result.

The Court does not address whether an exception may exist if the non-operating owner is negligent in leasing the building to the operating owner. Despite the fact that an owner may have no responsibility for the operation, maintenance or control of the building, there may be instances where an owner may foresee problems with the operating owner's ability to manage the building. In addition, the non-operating owner may know of preexisting problems with the building. May plaintiffs pursue a claim against the non-operating owner in such instances?

Additionally, in emphasizing that non-operating owners will not be held liable, the Court noted that § 316(2) provides for non-operating owner liability where a "tenant-factory" building is at issue. However, the Court did not address why the Legislature's distinction between tenant-factory buildings and non-tenant-factory buildings should make a difference in the decision of the instant case. The Court stated, "the Legislature went out of its way to impose liability on the owner to assure uniformity in compliance and accountability." However, such reasoning does not address the fact that the non-operating owner of a non-tenant-factory escapes liability as a result.

Survey of the Law in Other Jurisdictions

In Kauffman v. First-Central Trust Co., 151 Ohio St. 298, 302-303 (Ohio 1949), the court held, "[I]f a lessee has the sole control and management of an elevator in a leased building, he and not the lessor must usually answer to one who is injured because of defects in the elevator or by reason of surrounding dangers."

The Supreme Court of Washington similarly decided that where there is no warranty or covenant on the part of the landlord to uphold or repair the elevator that was "delivered into the complete control of the tenant," the landlord will not be liable for injuries sustained by passengers. Shew v. Hartnett, 121 Wash. 1, 9 (Wash. 1922).

However, in F. Blanco v. Marian Realty Co., 204 Cal. 145, 148 (Cal. 1928), the California Supreme Court held that where the owner is the operator, he or she owes elevator passengers "the highest degree of care and [is] responsible for the slightest negligence." Id. By contrast, where the owner merely supplies a tenant with the elevator and the tenant assumes the responsibility for its operation, the owner need only exercise "ordinary care" in the construction and maintenance of the facility. Id. at 150.