Fontecchio v. Bronx 656 Food Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Fontecchio v. Bronx 656 Food Corp.

2017 NY Slip Op 4402, 151 A.D.3d 458, 56 N.Y.S.3d 86

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

DecidedJune 6, 2017

Docket4182 307558/12

StatusPublished

This text of 2017 NY Slip Op 4402 (Fontecchio v. Bronx 656 Food Corp.) 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

Fontecchio v. Bronx 656 Food Corp., 2017 NY Slip Op 4402, 151 A.D.3d 458, 56 N.Y.S.3d 86 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Sharon A.M. Aarons, J.), entered on or about July 28, 2016, which, to the extent appealed from, denied defendants Bronx 656 Food Corp. and Fine Fare Supermarket’s (together, Fine Fare) motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims against them, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The lease between Fine Fare and the owner of the shopping center does not explicitly state that Fine Fare was responsible for maintaining the parking lot in which plaintiff alleges she was injured after stepping into a hole. However, it does make Fine Fare responsible for “appurtenances” to the demised premises (see Second on Second Café, Inc. v Hing Sing Trading, Inc., 66 AD3d 255, 267 [1st Dept 2009]). On this record, an issue of fact exists as to whether the parking lot was an “appurtenance.”

Concur—Renwick, J.R, Richter, Feinman, Gische and Kahn, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Sharon A.M. Aarons, J.), entered on or about July 28, 2016, which, to the extent appealed from, denied defendants Bronx 656 Food Corp. and Fine Fare Supermarket’s (together, Fine Fare) motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims against them, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The lease between Fine Fare and the owner of the shopping center does not explicitly state that Fine Fare was responsible for maintaining the parking lot in which plaintiff alleges she was injured after stepping into a hole. However, it does make Fine Fare responsible for “appurtenances” to the demised premises (see Second on Second Café, Inc. v Hing Sing Trading, Inc., 66 AD3d 255, 267 [1st Dept 2009]). On this record, an issue of fact exists as to whether the parking lot was an “appurtenance.”

Concur—Renwick, J.R, Richter, Feinman, Gische and Kahn, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2017 NY Slip Op 4402, 151 A.D.3d 458, 56 N.Y.S.3d 86, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fontecchio-v-bronx-656-food-corp-nyappdiv-2017.