CHARLES STENGER v. BULENT KOROGLU (L-8711-18, BERGEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)
A-0902-20
| N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. | Jan 24, 2022Background
- Plaintiffs Charles and Deborah Stenger leased a single‑family residence in September 2014 and were the exclusive tenants; the landlord did not enter or perform repairs during the tenancy.
- On January 19, 2017 Charles fell on the bottom step of the interior stairway, injuring himself.
- Plaintiffs used the stairway daily ("hundreds if not thousands of times"), routinely cleaned handrails, and painted the stair risers multiple times during tenancy.
- The lease assigned responsibility for stair upkeep to the tenants; defendant landlord made no alterations or repairs.
- Plaintiffs' expert reported irregular tread heights/widths and opined the variations violated code and were a "hidden defect," but plaintiffs produced no evidence the landlord actively or constructively concealed the condition.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for the landlord, finding plaintiffs were aware of the stair condition and responsible under the lease; the Appellate Division affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Landlord duty for stair defect | Landlord liable for a latent/hidden stair defect causing injury | No duty: tenant in exclusive possession and lease assigns stair upkeep to tenant | Court: No duty here; summary judgment for landlord |
| Whether a genuine issue of material fact exists about notice | Expert's report on defective treads creates triable issue about latent defect and notice | Plaintiffs repeatedly used, maintained, and painted stairs and thus were aware; no concealment evidence | Court: Evidence one‑sided; plaintiffs were aware; no triable issue |
| Effect of lease allocation of maintenance | Lease cannot absolve landlord of responsibility for hidden dangerous conditions | Lease made plaintiffs solely responsible for stair upkeep, supporting no landlord liability | Court: Lease allocation significant; supports summary judgment |
| Sufficiency of expert opinion to defeat summary judgment | Expert code violation opinion establishes dangerous latent condition | Expert opinion alone, without concealment or lack of tenant awareness, insufficient to create triable issue | Court: Expert insufficient given undisputed facts; summary judgment affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Patton v. Tex. Co., 13 N.J. Super. 42 (App. Div. 1951) (landlord not liable for open/non‑latent defects absent fraudulent concealment)
- Szeles v. Vena, 321 N.J. Super. 601 (App. Div. 1999) (Patton rule applied to tenant injured on an open defect after long occupancy)
- Reyes v. Egner, 404 N.J. Super. 433 (App. Div. 2009) (questioning rigid fraudulent‑concealment requirement; short‑term lessee context differs)
- Brill v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 142 N.J. 520 (1995) (summary judgment standard: evidence so one‑sided that one party must prevail)
- Lee v. Brown, 232 N.J. 114 (2018) (appellate review of summary judgment is de novo)