Family of Boy Thrown from Bronx Roof Sues Landlord: Report

[rachel1]

The family of a 9-year-old boy who fell into a coma after allegedly being thrown from a Bronx rooftop is suing the building's landlord, according to a published report.

Attorneys for Freddy Martin's family filed a multimillion-dollar civil lawsuit against Featherbed Holdings LLC, the owner of the building in Morris Heights where 17-year-old Casmine Aska is accused of throwing Martin off the roof earlier this month, the Daily News reports.

The family's attorney, Steven Hymowitz, told the News that the landlord is partially to blame for the crime because the building's roof was not properly monitored.

Contact information for Featherbed Holdings LLC was not immediately available.

Aska has pleaded not guilty to attempted murder charges and is currently being held on Rikers Island.

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/50840187/ns/local_news-new_york_ny/

I couldn't agree more with the lawsuit and I hope the family sues the hell out of Featherbed Holdings LLC for the emotional and financial damages they've inflicted upon their 9-year-old son and their entire family.

It's despicable to read about a helpless family being allowed to have their child injured, if not murdered, because the landlords allowed Freddy Martin to be forced onto the rooftop and thrown to his death.

I wouldn't be surprised if the landlords falsely claim that the parents were the ones responsible and negligent as if they were suppose to monitor him themselves!

[Warpy]

1. Apartment buildings always had stairs leading up to the flat roof

when I lived in Boston. The roof was a great place to go after sunset, trying to catch the few breezes around on super hot days. I suppose the doors will now be locked because of this suit, leaving tenants to swelter in their apartments.

This article has very little relevant information. For instance, who injured Aska so badly that he's still in the hospital? What was Martin doing on the rooftop with him?

I can see this as a terrible accident. Roof parapets are often only about 6 inches tall, not much of a safety rail there. However, without knowing more of what went on that day, there's no way of knowing whether or not this suit has any merit, at all.

(The people who "fell off the roof to their deaths" in the kind of neighborhoods I lived in were usually heroin ODs who'd been carried up there and tossed off by their friends, on the theory that accidental death would be more palatable on a death certificate than OD. It never worked)

[rachel1]

2. Freddy Martin, a 9-year-old, was thrown off the building rooftop by a 17-year-old

named Casmine Aska, the landlords did NOTHING to stop it, and now Freddy Martin's family is suffering because of the landlords' negligence.

This is an open-and-shut case which seems to overwhelmingly favor the side of Freddy Martin's family.

[marybourg]

4. When I was a kid in the Bronx, MY landlord sat on the roof, day and night,

on a little beach chair, preventing anyone from throwing anyone else off the roof. His wife used to bring him sandwiches every day.

[Warpy]

5. Thank you!

Now if the landlord had been chasing both kids, there might be a reason for the lawsuit.

[rachel1]

6. So, it's a joke to you that a 9-year-old child was allowed be injured, if not murdered, because

the landlords behaved so recklessly and did nothing at all to save the child's life? Really?

What's next? Blame the parents for not monitoring their children?

[marybourg]

7. Could you elaborate on the landlord's reckless behavior?

(since you left out the required sarcasm smiley)

[rachel1]

12. The landlords have done nothing to prevent people from falling off or being thrown off

the rooftop despite knowing those incidents could've occurred.

Now a 9-year-old child is fighting for his life in the hospital because some careless landlords seem to dismiss any responsibility for what they've caused.

[liberalhistorian]

10. The only person behaving recklessly

was the criminal teen who threw the child off the roof. What, exactly, was the landlord supposed to do, follow every single tenant in the building every moment of the day and night?

[rachel1]

16. The landlords could've installed safety mechanisms & implemented safety policies to prevent people

from falling off or being thrown off the rooftop but nothing at all was done. Who knows if they'll even consider it after what happened to Freddy Martin.

Yes, a Casmine Aska is accused of the attempted murder of Freddy Martin but that doesn't absolve the landlords of any blame for allowing Casmine Aska to potentially kill Freddy Martin.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

25. what would you suggest?

fencing? high walls? you know, those are banned by NYC fire code...

sP

OnEdit : I was wrong... the NYC fire code does NOT prohibit the use of walls or fencing

[FreakinDJ]

15. Just because you use the word "Child" doesn't make your argument valid

just as the RATpubliCONs have invoked so much justifiable anger and political destruction over emotional issues of "God, Guns, and Gays" the use the this "CHILD's" plight doesn't add to the credibility of your argument.

It just adds you to the list of people who USE children

[alphafemale]

27. How is it reckless of the landlord when this is how most building rooftops are and have always been?

Should all landlords also be required to install 6 ft high fences in yards so kids don't wander into traffic.

And yes it is ultimately a parent's responsibility to see to the safety of their child.

Are you being sarcastic?

[BainsBane]

22. How about a guard wall?

Or rail? I would think that would be a code requirement.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

26. actually, railings and guard walls

may not be allowed by fire code... it could impede firefighter access to the roof...

sP

after checking the code... this is not so...

[BillF]

18. "Tar Beach" was a famous resort when I lived in Bronx and Manhattan apartments...

and there was usually maybe 3 feet of wall around the roof to limit the odd slip and fall. There was also a rooftop fire escape in case we couldn't get down the stairs or to our apartment fire escape. AFIK, rooftop access was required by the fire codes, although NYC fire-resistive apartment buildings often had no roof access because the fireproof stairs were considered good enough.

Without nasty breaches of building and fire codes, I'm not sure what liability the landlord would have. It does sound like a deep pockets suit that will be settled to make it go away.

[Warpy]

21. Yeah, that's what it sounds like to me, too

barring more information coming out that the landlord actively participated in the kid's death.

Parapets were lower in Boston, probably because the buildings there are ancient. There might be some decorative stuff on the facade facing the street, but the rest of it was just enough to catch the fresh tar when roofers had to be called in.

[petronius]

3. Are there building codes or rental regulations that specify roof access

control (lock/alarm), and whether landlords are required to make an effort to exclude people from the roof (and if access is allowed, what safety features must be present)? If so, it seems that the family would have a case if the owner failed to abide by applicable regulations...

[redqueen]

11. That is the relevant question.

Posting idiotic sarcastic comments is totes more funner tho, u no?

[Ikonoklast]

8. If access to the roof was not properly secured, and the roof had no safety devices to keep

people from falling off, I would say that the landlord has some degree of blame.

I think the attorneys are using an 'attractive nuisance' as part of the basis for their claim.


And parents cannot be everywhere at all times.

[JI7]

14. but this was a case of someone throwing someone off

not an accident where something was not secure so someone fell down.

[Ikonoklast]

17. And if access to the roof was secured, the kid would never have been able to go up on the roof.

I agree, the landlord didn't do the throwing.

But if he was legally negligent in any way, he will share some of the blame for the child's injuries.

Look, I've been a landlord.

You better have alll of your ducks in a row and looked over by an attorney for potential pitfalls of liability or you are leaving yourself wide open to injury suits.

And yeah, I still got sued.

[JI7]

19. what do you mean by secured ? like not let people up there ?

i guess i can see that if it was thought that nobody would/should be allowed to go up there .

[Ikonoklast]

23. Locked, alarmed, limited access to any egress to the roof other than by authorized personnel....

Now if tenants routinely went on the roof because they bypassed any impediments put there by the landlord to accessing the roof, say by breaking the lock on a hatch or door, then it would be hard to prove negligence on the part of the landlord.


If the landlord did nothing to stop tenants from accessing the roof, and there were no real safety measures on the roof to keep people from falling from it, like a fence or high railing, he's in trouble.

[marybourg]

29. I can assure you that tenants in the Bronx

are capable and motivated to bypass any impediment to entering upon the roof in order to catch a breeze, get some sun in a bathing suit or get some rare privacy. And those are only the *legitimate* possibilities. When I was a kid, tenants used to raise pigeons on the roof.

The last apartment building I lived in in N.Y. was a middle class co-op. That means the tenants owned the building; we *were* the landlord and therefore motivated to do everything legally. The roof doors did have latches (but no locks) and had an alarm which could be heard by some, but not all, of the tenants. After a while everyone learned to ignore the alarm since the superintendent, the air conditioning company, the elevator company, the plumber, the painters, the security guard and who knows who else had legitimate need to go up there. We were told that the roof was not allowed to be locked, but only alarmed. That was many years ago of course. Laws may have changed, but not human nature.

[liberalhistorian]

9. Why are they suing the landlord instead of the

man responsible for actually throwing him off the roof? How, exactly, is the landlord responsible? What should the landlord have done, stayed up on the roof 24/7, never leaving? Why is the landlord responsible for the criminal actions of the man who threw the child off the roof?

I'll tell you right now why the landlord is being sued instead of the murderous teen and his family, because the landlord has deep pockets, whereas the teen responsible does not. THAT is the real reason, because I just don't see how the landlord is responsible. What're they supposed to do, provide a personal bodyguard for all of the tenants in the building????

[JI7]

13. yes, it's like when starbucks was sued

because someone got killed going after someone who stole money from the tip jar.

the guy went after someone who stole from the tip jar and they got in a fight with the person who stole the tip ending up hitting the guy with his car.

[OceanEcosystem]

20. Totally agree 100% with you.

It bugs me to no end when people sue the wrong person or entity instead of suing the person who was actually the cause of the trouble.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

30. Deep pockets nt

[TheMadMonk]

24. Really? And who should be paying for 24/7 security?

If one rooftop requires monitoring then all do. = Total surveilance society.

Or should every rooftop in America be made restricted access? What of multi-story car parks? Bridges? Trees?

[idwiyo]

28. Why was their 9 yo outside unsupervised by parents?