From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Kramer v. Ash Clothing

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 27, 1995
213 A.D.2d 600 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)

Opinion

March 27, 1995

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hurowitz, J.).


Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly dismissed the complaint insofar as it is asserted against the respondents. The record demonstrates that the respondents were landlords out of possession and did not retain sufficient dominion and control over the leased premises where the accident occurred to impose liability upon them for an allegedly defective condition existing on the premises (see, Aprea v. Carol Mgt. Corp., 190 A.D.2d 838; Canela v. Foodway Supermarket, 188 A.D.2d 416; Brown v. Weinreb, 183 A.D.2d 562; Hecht v. Vanderbilt Assocs., 141 A.D.2d 696, 699; Silver v Brodsky, 112 A.D.2d 213, 214). Contrary to the appellants' contentions, we find no basis in this record to conclude that the trap door on the premises constituted a defective condition or that the respondents violated any statutory regulation. Bracken, J.P., Rosenblatt, Lawrence, Krausman and Goldstein, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Kramer v. Ash Clothing

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 27, 1995
213 A.D.2d 600 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)
Case details for

Kramer v. Ash Clothing

Case Details

Full title:ROBERT KRAMER et al., Appellants, v. ASH CLOTHING et al., Defendants, and…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Mar 27, 1995

Citations

213 A.D.2d 600 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)
624 N.Y.S.2d 926

Citing Cases

Wisznic v. Nostrand Shoppers, Inc.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs to the defendant-respondent. The…

Reid v. 320 E. 81st Street Corp.

For a court to conclude, as a matter of law, that a jury verdict is not supported by sufficient evidence, it…