28
Long Island R.R. Co., 248 N.Y. 339 (N.Y. 1928). Unlike a determination of causation,
which is a fact-centered issue generally reserved for the trier of fact, the issue of duty
generally requires "legal, policy-laden" decisions. Palka v. Servicemaster Management
Serv. Corp., 634 N.E.2d 189, 192 (N.Y. 1994). Duty is determined by balancing several
factors including: (a) whether the relationship is such that it gives rise to a duty of care,
(b) whether the plaintiff is within the zone of foreseeable harm; and (c) whether the
accident was within the zone of reasonably foreseeable risks. DiPonzio v. Riordan, 679
N.E.2d 616, 618 (N.Y. 1997). However, foreseeability of harm alone does not define
duty. See Pulka v. Edelman, 40 N.Y.2d 781, 785 (N.Y. 1976). "Absent a duty running
directly to the injured person there can be no liability in damages, however careless the
conduct or foreseeable the harm." 532 Madison Ave. Gourmet Foods, Inc. v. Tishman
Construction Corp. et al., 750 N.E.2d 1097, 1101 (N.Y. 2001). A preliminary
determination must therefore be made as to whether or not Citigroup owed a duty of care
to Con Ed.
It is well established that landowners, and persons in possession of
property, owe a duty to persons on their property to protect them from harm arising from
conditions on the property. Kreindler, supra, at § 12.2. As a lessor of 7WTC, Citigroup
exercised control over its premises and therefore owed a duty to "exercise reasonable
care under the circumstances in maintaining its property in a safe condition," Kush, 449
N.E.2d at 727. The duty to maintain its premises in a reasonably safe condition included
a duty to undertake reasonable fire-safety precautions. Washington v. Albany Hous.
Auth., 746 N.Y.S.2d 99, 101 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002). Although the duty owed by owners
or occupiers of land is generally thought to extend only to tenants (or sub-tenants),
