Opinion
November 5, 1992
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Stanley L. Sklar, J.).
The trial court correctly directed judgment in favor of Otis notwithstanding verdict. Under its contract with Tishman, Otis was responsible for maintaining the operating equipment of the premises, not the interior of the cab, and, owing no duty with respect to the deteriorating aesthetic appearance of the cab's interior caused by water stains, Otis cannot be held liable for failing to inspect and repair any damage caused to the cab's ceiling tile which, apparently loosened by water leakage in the shaft and fell on plaintiff's foot (see, Balsam v Delma Eng'g Corp., 139 A.D.2d 292, lv dismissed in part and denied in part 73 N.Y.2d 783). Absent proof of negligence on Otis' part enhancing a dangerous condition, Otis cannot be held liable simply because it voluntarily informed Tishman of the possibility of some type of damage to the interior of the cab (see, Nallan v Helmsley-Spear, Inc., 50 N.Y.2d 507).
We have considered Tishman's remaining claims and find them to be without merit.
Concur — Milonas, J.P., Rosenberger, Ross and Asch, JJ.