NY2d 9, 22 [2001] ["the landlord having contractually retained a right of entry and
having assumed a duty to make repairs may not use the invisibility of lead contained in
paint to avoid liability"], citing Queeney v Willi, 225 NY 374 [although the
frozen pipe which injured the tenant was concealed from view, the tenant advised the
landlord that the walls and ceiling of the bedroom were exceedingly damp, and therefore
the court found that "[t]he landlord may not sit helplessly by and say that he cannot see
what produces such conditions"]; see also Zwerin v Geiss, 38 Misc 2d 306, 310
[Civ Ct 1963] ["Unless such right to re-entry is reserved, the landlord has no
general right at common law to enter on the premises, even to make repairs. However, if
the re-entry is required by public authorities, or to cure and repair a dangerous condition,
and the duty is cast upon the landlord to do so, he is not liable to the tenant for such
disturbance or interference" [emphasis added]], citing Harperly Hall Co. v Joseph
[App Term 1st Dept 1921]).
In the analogous context of negligence claims and, more specifically, whether a
landlord can be deemed to have constructive notice of a defective condition, "when a
landlord who is out of possession retains a right under the lease of re-entry to the
premises, liability may be imposed, and it may be imposed irrespective of notice, since
constructive notice is charged in such circumstances" (Armand v Leemilt's Petroleum,
Inc., 172 AD2d 459, 460 [1st Dept 1991]; Tkach v Montefiore Hosp. for Chronic
Diseases, 289 NY 387, 390 [1943] [charging the landlord with "constructive notice
of defects in all those parts of the building into which, by authority of the written lease,