From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Malloy v. Friedland

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Oct 28, 2010
77 A.D.3d 583 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010)

Opinion

No. 3483.

October 28, 2010.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Joan Madden, J.), entered July 24, 2009, which granted the landlord defendants' motion for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Kelner and Kelner, New York (Joshua D. Kelner of counsel), for appellant.

Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman Dicker LLP, White Plains (Edward J. O'Gorman of counsel), for respondents.

Before: Tom, J.P., Friedman, Catterson, Renwick and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.


Plaintiff asserts he was injured in 2007 when he fell into a trapdoor opening while shopping at Hamilton Heights Deli on Manhattan's upper west side. According to the record, the trapdoor had been left open by one of the tenant's employees.

It is well settled that "[a] landlord is not generally liable for negligence with respect to the condition of property after its transfer of possession and control to a tenant unless the landlord is either contractually obligated to make repairs or maintain the premises, or has a contractual right to reenter, inspect and make needed repairs at the tenant's expense, and liability is based on a significant structural or design defect that is contrary to a specific statutory safety provision" ( Babich v R.G.T. Rest. Corp., 75 AD3d 439, 440). Although the lease agreement does state that the landlord has the right to reenter to make repairs, plaintiff has failed to show that the Friedland defendants violated any specific statutory safety provision. Moreover, "[a] properly functioning trapdoor that is left open by someone under the tenant's control is not a structural defect, either pursuant to the lease or under case law" ( Baez v Barnard Coll, 71 AD3d 585, 586).

Pursuant to the lease, the tenant had sole responsibility for maintaining the area where plaintiff alleges he sustained his injuries. Therefore, as out-of-possession owners, the Friedland defendants cannot be held liable under these circumstances ( see Dexter v Horowitz Mgt., 267 AD2d 21, 22; see generally Lewis v Sears, Roebuck Co., 35 AD3d 273).


Summaries of

Malloy v. Friedland

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Oct 28, 2010
77 A.D.3d 583 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010)
Case details for

Malloy v. Friedland

Case Details

Full title:JOHN MALLOY, Appellant, v. MELVIN FRIEDLAND et al., Respondents, et al.…

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

Date published: Oct 28, 2010

Citations

77 A.D.3d 583 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010)
2010 N.Y. Slip Op. 7673
911 N.Y.S.2d 290

Citing Cases

Martinez v. 3801 Equity Co.

The subject lease provided that defendant "shall maintain and repair the public portions of the building,…

BRIGNONI v. 601 WEST 162 ASSOC., L.P.

(Malloy v Friedland , 77 AD3d 583, 583 [1st Dept 2010] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]).…