From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Valenti v. 400 Carlls

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 17, 2008
52 A.D.3d 696 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008)

Summary

affirming summary judgment

Summary of this case from Gerbo v. Kmart Corp.

Opinion

No. 2007-04786.

June 17, 2008.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Rebolini, J.), dated April 23, 2007, which granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Grey Grey, LLP, Farmingdale, N.Y. (Joan S. O'Brien of counsel), for appellants.

Morenus, Conway, Goren Brandman, Melville, N.Y. (Alison M. Berdnik of counsel), for respondent.

Before: Prudenti, P.J., Miller, Carni and Chambers, JJ.


Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The injured plaintiff allegedly slipped and fell over a hazardous condition in a parking lot owned by the defendant. An out-of-possession owner or lessor is not liable for injuries that occur on the premises unless the owner or lessor has retained control over the premises or is contractually obligated to repair unsafe conditions ( see Lindquist v C C Landscape Contrs., Inc., 38 AD3d 616). Here, the defendant established its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that it was an out-of-possession landlord which had no duty to maintain or repair the parking lot ( see Yadegar v International Food Mkt., 37 AD3d 595; Seney v Kee Assoc, 15 AD3d 383; Berado v City of Mount Vernon, 262 AD2d 513 ). Although the defendant retained the right to enter the premises to make repairs, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the defendant violated a specific statutory provision ( see O'Connell v L.B. Realty Co., 50 AD3d 752; Ahmad v City of New York, 298 AD2d 473, 474; Kilimnik v Mirage Rest, 223 AD2d 530). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.


Summaries of

Valenti v. 400 Carlls

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 17, 2008
52 A.D.3d 696 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008)

affirming summary judgment

Summary of this case from Gerbo v. Kmart Corp.

affirming summary judgment where there was no triable issue of fact as to whether out-of-possession licensor violated duty

Summary of this case from Gerbo v. Kmart Corp.
Case details for

Valenti v. 400 Carlls

Case Details

Full title:ANNABELLE VALENTI et al., Appellants, v. 400 CARLLS PATH REALTY CORP.,…

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

Date published: Jun 17, 2008

Citations

52 A.D.3d 696 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008)
2008 N.Y. Slip Op. 5683
861 N.Y.S.2d 357

Citing Cases

Gerbo v. Kmart Corp.

Under New York law, an out-of-possession owner or lessor can be liable for injuries that occur on the…

Euvino v. Loconti

Accordingly, the Supreme Court determined he could be liable for injuries occurring at the house. "An…