MOODK Attorney Grace Olubowale of our Maryland Office successfully obtained dismissal in a slip and fall action. The plaintiff in the case alleged that she had fallen on a ramp owned by MOODK’s client and sought damages based on a theory of negligence. However, the property at issue had been donated by MOODK’s client to a local county in October 2020 prior to the alleged fall occurred. MOODK’s attorney filed a Motion to Dismiss the claim and argued that the client did not owe any duty to the plaintiff as the client was no longer in control of the premises after it had donated the property to the local county. The Court agreed and dismissed MOODK’s client from the case.

Belinda R. Boone, Esq., with the assistance of Alexis Bueno-Wyse, Esq. of MOODK’s New York office, obtained Summary Judgment on behalf of its client in a premises liability case in Supreme Court, Bronx County.  The plaintiff alleged that she was injured by a patio umbrella that took flight due to a gust of wind at a senior living facility owned and operated by MOODK’s client. The patio umbrella was secured inside a table. In representing the defendant, MOODK argued that they did not have notice of or create a dangerous condition that posed a foreseeable risk of injury to persons expected to be on the premises. In addition, we presented meteorological evidence through an expert that our client had no actual or constructive notice of any wind advisories that would have informed them of any extraordinary wind conditions and therefore should not be held liable for any consequences thereof. The court found that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case, ruling that “the occurrence of a freak or unexpected event does not establish negligence as notice was lacking,” thus preventing a jury trial in a venue historically known for substantial jury verdicts for plaintiffs. 

Megan Mantzavinos, Esquire of Mark’s O’Neill’s Maryland office successfully advocated for the entry of a declaratory judgment in favor of her client, a condominium association.  Plaintiffs are the owners of a unit of a high-rise condominium in Ocean City, MD.  The unit directly upstairs from Plaintiffs had a water leak which caused damage in their unit.  They made a claim against the condominium for the cost of repairs.

Pursuant to a provision in its bylaws, the Defendant maintains a “bare walls” insurance policy which covers damage to the common areas of the building, but not to anything inside the condominium units.  When Defendant refused to pay for the damage to the Planitiffs’ unit, they filed suit, seeking a declaration that the condo association was required to pay for the damage.  After limited discovery, the parties filed cross motions for summary judgment.

The current version of the Maryland Condominium Act, Md. Code Ann. Real Property s. 11-101, et seq., places responsibility for repair of condominium units with the condo association and requires it to maintain insurance for damage to the interior of units.  Md. Code Ann. Real. Prop. S. 11-114.  But an earlier version of the Act, which was in effect when the Defendant was formed in 1975, did not require condo associations to repair individual units after a casualty loss.  In 2008, the Maryland Supreme Court had ruled that condominiums which were formed prior to the enactment of the current statute were not responsible for individual units, Anderson v. Council of Unit Owners of Gables on Tuckerman Condominium, 404 Md. 560, 591 (2008); however, that ruling was overturned by statute a year later.

Defendant’s argument relied on another section of the Condominium Act, which Plaintiffs ignored, Md. Code Ann. Real Prop. ss.  11-142(a) and (b).  This section provides that condominiums which existed before July 1, 1982 are subject to the requirements of s. 11-114, unless the condo’s governing documents provide otherwise.  s. 11-142 also states that a pre-July 1, 1982 condo is not required to amend its governing documents to comply with the requirements of s. 11-114.

The Circuit Court for Worcester County found that although s. 11-114 still applies to condo associations formed before July 1, 1982, but that if the bylaws contain provisions which conflict with 11-114, then the bylaws control.  The Court examined Defendants’ bylaws and found that they placed responsibility for maintenance and repair work inside a unit with the unit owner.  The Court also found that the bylaws limited Defendant’s obligation to ensure the condominium did not include anything within the individual units.  Read as a whole, the Court characterized Defendant’s bylaws as creating a “comprehensive, complementary mechanism for addressing damage to the condominium unit.”  Accordingly, the Court granted Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment and denied Plaintiff’s.