D'Orlando v. Port Authority of NY & NJ

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

D'Orlando v. Port Authority of NY & NJ

250 A.D.2d 805, 674 N.Y.S.2d 382, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6045

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedMay 26, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 250 A.D.2d 805 (D'Orlando v. Port Authority of NY & NJ) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

D'Orlando v. Port Authority of NY & NJ, 250 A.D.2d 805, 674 N.Y.S.2d 382, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6045 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, sued herein as Port Authority of NY & NJ, appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Barasch, J.), dated October 1, 1997, as denied that branch of its motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, that branch of the appellant’s motion which was for summary judgment is granted, the complaint is dismissed insofar as asserted against the appellant, and the action against the remaining defendant is severed.

An out-of-possession landlord owes no duty to maintain and make repairs upon demised property unless he retains control over the property or is contractually obligated to perform such maintenance and repairs (see, e.g., Ritto v Goldberg, 27 NY2d 887, 889; see also, Putnam v Stout, 38 NY2d 607, 617; Dalzell v McDonald’s Corp., 220 AD2d 638; Dufficy v Wharf Bar & Grill, 217 AD2d 646; Schlesinger v Rockefeller Ctr., 119 AD2d 462). However, the duty to maintain and repair may be imposed upon the landlord by statute (see, e.g., Guzman v Haven Plaza Hous. Dev. Fund Co., 69 NY2d 559).

It is well established that there is no statute imposing a duty on the Port Authority of NY & NJ (hereinafter the appellant) to maintain and repair the various terminals that it leases to individual airlines at John F. Kennedy International Airport (see, e.g., Love v Port Auth., 168 AD2d 222). Moreover, the lease between the appellant and Trans World Airlines, Inc. (hereinafter TWA), expressly relieves the appellant of any obligation to maintain and repair the area in question, where the plaintiff slipped on ice and snow, and which TWA admits was under its exclusive control (see, e.g., Stark v Port Auth., 224 AD2d 681; O’Gorman v Gold Shield Sec. & Investigation, 221 AD2d 325; Love v Port Auth., supra; see also, Felder v Wank, 227 AD2d 442; Aprea v Carol Mgt. Corp., 190 AD2d 838). The appellant’s retention of a limited right to reenter the [806]*806leased premises to inspect and to make major structural repairs did not suffice to give rise to liability for a transitory snow-and-ice condition (see, e.g., Felder v Wank, supra; Stark v Port Auth., supra; Aprea v Carol Mgt. Corp., supra). Thompson, J. P., Santucci, Friedmann and Florio, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, sued herein as Port Authority of NY & NJ, appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Barasch, J.), dated October 1, 1997, as denied that branch of its motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, that branch of the appellant’s motion which was for summary judgment is granted, the complaint is dismissed insofar as asserted against the appellant, and the action against the remaining defendant is severed.

An out-of-possession landlord owes no duty to maintain and make repairs upon demised property unless he retains control over the property or is contractually obligated to perform such maintenance and repairs (see, e.g., Ritto v Goldberg, 27 NY2d 887, 889; see also, Putnam v Stout, 38 NY2d 607, 617; Dalzell v McDonald’s Corp., 220 AD2d 638; Dufficy v Wharf Bar & Grill, 217 AD2d 646; Schlesinger v Rockefeller Ctr., 119 AD2d 462). However, the duty to maintain and repair may be imposed upon the landlord by statute (see, e.g., Guzman v Haven Plaza Hous. Dev. Fund Co., 69 NY2d 559).

It is well established that there is no statute imposing a duty on the Port Authority of NY & NJ (hereinafter the appellant) to maintain and repair the various terminals that it leases to individual airlines at John F. Kennedy International Airport (see, e.g., Love v Port Auth., 168 AD2d 222). Moreover, the lease between the appellant and Trans World Airlines, Inc. (hereinafter TWA), expressly relieves the appellant of any obligation to maintain and repair the area in question, where the plaintiff slipped on ice and snow, and which TWA admits was under its exclusive control (see, e.g., Stark v Port Auth., 224 AD2d 681; O’Gorman v Gold Shield Sec. & Investigation, 221 AD2d 325; Love v Port Auth., supra; see also, Felder v Wank, 227 AD2d 442; Aprea v Carol Mgt. Corp., 190 AD2d 838). The appellant’s retention of a limited right to reenter the [806]*806leased premises to inspect and to make major structural repairs did not suffice to give rise to liability for a transitory snow-and-ice condition (see, e.g., Felder v Wank, supra; Stark v Port Auth., supra; Aprea v Carol Mgt. Corp., supra). Thompson, J. P., Santucci, Friedmann and Florio, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

250 A.D.2d 805, 674 N.Y.S.2d 382, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6045, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dorlando-v-port-authority-of-ny-nj-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack