Case Background
The case of Prakaido Hoets v. Ferris Avenue Holdings, LLC arose from an accident on October 9, 2017, inside a residential building located at 37 Ferris Avenue, Norwalk, Connecticut. Hoets, who lived lawfully on the property, entered the attic to place items in storage. While doing so, part of the attic floor collapsed beneath her. Her leg and foot plunged through the ceiling into the room below, leaving her injured and shaken.
Hoets alleged that the collapse resulted from the landlord’s failure to maintain the property safely. She argued that Ferris Avenue Holdings, LLC, which owned and managed the premises, ignored building code requirements and failed to keep the attic floor structurally sound. On July 23, 2019, she filed a complaint demanding damages for her physical injuries, medical expenses, and the disruption the accident caused in her life.
Cause
The lawsuit centred on negligence. Hoets claimed the company failed in several key duties: proper maintenance of the attic, timely inspection of the structure, and compliance with building codes. She argued the attic floor could not bear the weight of someone walking across it, even though tenants naturally used the space for storage.
Her complaint listed specific failures: not repairing dangerous conditions, not posting warnings, not erecting barriers to prevent use of unsafe areas, and ignoring Connecticut Building Code requirements for load-bearing capacity.
Injury
The fall caused Hoets a long list of injuries. She suffered a keloid scar and nerve damage in her right leg, along with contusions, herniated discs, and femoral nerve neuropathy. She also experienced calcified hematomas, swelling, bruising, and tenderness in her leg.
Beyond the leg injuries, she endured back pain, foot pain, calf pain, knee discomfort, irregular gait, scarring, and reduced mobility. Her sleep patterns were disturbed, and she reported both mental and physical suffering. Doctors documented an exacerbation of her pre-existing sciatica and back condition, which worsened because of the fall.
Damages
Hoets said the accident left her with large medical expenses for hospital visits, medicines, diagnostic tests, injections, and physical therapy. She noted that she would likely face further medical bills in the future.
She also emphasized the non-financial toll: her ability to enjoy everyday activities was cut short, her range of motion limited, and her lifestyle altered by constant pain. Her complaint sought monetary damages exceeding $15,000, exclusive of interest and costs.
Key Arguments and Proceedings
Plaintiff’s Claims
Hoets’s attorneys from Ventura Law argued that Ferris Avenue Holdings bore complete responsibility. They said the company ignored obvious dangers in the attic, failed to secure walking surfaces, and violated state building codes.
They painted the picture of a landlord who allowed unsafe conditions to exist, even though tenants depended on the property being secure. The Plaintiff’s side argued that Hoets acted as any ordinary tenant would by using the attic for storage. The collapse, they said, showed the property owner’s neglect.
Defense’s Response
Ferris Avenue Holdings denied liability. In its official answer, the company accepted ownership of the premises but disputed the rest. It claimed Hoets herself caused the accident through careless conduct.
The defense’s special arguments listed multiple reasons why the Plaintiff was at fault. They said she stepped onto sheetrock instead of attic joists, chose to walk in areas not designed for weight, and ignored safer alternate routes. They emphasized she failed to watch her surroundings and exercised poor judgment in moving through the attic.
By shifting blame onto Hoets, the defense sought to reduce or eliminate damages.
Legal Representation
Plaintiff: Prakaido Hoets
Counsel for Plaintiff: Nathan C. Nasser
Experts for Plaintiff: Mark W.Tebbetts | Lawrence Lefkowitz | Claudio Petrillo | Silvia Knoploch | Abraham Mintz | John F. Hogan | Cynthia Bourbeau | Estelle R. Hutchinson | Gary Crakes | Steven D. Feinberg
Defendant: Ferris Avenue Holdings, LLC
Counsel for Defendant: Anthony J. Saraco
Experts for Defendant: Carl Cianci | James Yue | Wilfred L. Hynes
Key Arguments by Counsel
Plaintiff’s Counsel told the jury the case was about basic safety and landlord responsibility. He stressed that building codes exist for a reason: to protect tenants from preventable harm. He argued that Ferris Avenue Holdings ignored those rules, and the result was a painful, life-altering injury to Hoets.
Defense Counsel countered by pointing out the Plaintiff’s own role. He argued that everyone understands attics are risky spaces and that Hoets ignored visible signs of danger. He said she chose to step in the wrong place, knowing or at least reasonably expected to know that the sheetrock floor was not designed to support her weight.
Claims
The Plaintiff’s claims centred on negligence. She said the landlord failed to:
Maintain the attic safely
Inspect and repair dangerous conditions
Follow building codes for load-bearing capacity
Post warnings or erect barriers
Train employees to protect tenants
She tied each of these failures directly to the accident and her injuries.
Defense
The defense strategy was contributory negligence. The company claimed Hoets ignored her own safety. They said she stepped where she should not have stepped, chose unsafe surfaces, failed to keep a lookout, and bypassed safer paths. In short, they argued the accident was her own doing.
Jury Verdict
On August 2, 2024, the jury returned its verdict. After weighing the arguments, the panel found in favor of the Defendant, Ferris Avenue Holdings, LLC.
The verdict meant that Hoets, despite presenting extensive medical evidence and pointing to building code violations, did not convince the jury that the landlord was legally responsible. The jury accepted the defense’s position that her own conduct caused the fall.
The outcome left the Plaintiff with no damages awarded. For Ferris Avenue Holdings, the decision marked a complete defense victory.
