Plaintiffs rely upon Altz v. Lieberson (233 N. Y. 16 [1922]) in which the court held that the former Tenement House Law (now Multiple Dwelling Law and Multiple Residence Law) altered the common-law rule that a landlord, in the absence of an express covenant, was not obligated to repair. It was this statutory change that subjected the landlord to liability in tort. This was pointed out in Cullings v. Goetz (256 N. Y. 287 [1931]), where the court said on page 292: ‘ ‘ Liability has been enlarged by statute where an apartment in a tenement house in a city of the first class is the subject of a lease (Altz v. Lieberson, 233 N. Y. 16).”
Cullings v. Goetz (supra) was an action against the lessee and owners of a building for personal injuries when a defective garage door fell on the plaintiff. The lease was an oral one and ran from month to month. The court held that the failure of the owners to keep the promise to repair did not make them liable in tort, as such liability was confined to the lessee. ‘ ‘ The doctrine, wise or unwise in its origin, has worked itself by common acquiescence into the tissues of our law. It is too deeply imbedded to be superseded or ignored. # * * (p. 291) Countless tenants, suing for personal injuries and proving nothing more than the breach of an agreement, have been dismissed without a remedy. * * * If there is no remedy for the tenant, there is none for visitors or relatives present in the tenant’s right.” (p. 292).