Franks v. G & H Real Estate Holding Corp.

16 A.D.3d 619, 793 N.Y.S.2d 61, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3272
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMarch 28, 2005
StatusPublished
Cited by12 cases

This text of 16 A.D.3d 619 (Franks v. G & H Real Estate Holding 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
Franks v. G & H Real Estate Holding Corp., 16 A.D.3d 619, 793 N.Y.S.2d 61, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3272 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant Eckerd Corp., doing business as Genovese Drug Store, #5514, appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Glover, J.), dated December 8, 2003, as denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against it, and the defendants Mr. China, Inc., doing business as Mr. China Bridal Registry, and North Shore True Value Hardware separately appeal, as limited by their briefs, from so much of the same order as denied their motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against them.

Ordered that the order is modified, on the law, by deleting the provision thereof denying the motion of the defendant Eckerd Corp., doing business as Genovese Drug Store, #5514, for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against it and substituting therefor a provision granting that motion; as so modified, the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs to the appellant Eckerd Corp., doing business as Genovese Drug Store, #5514, payable by the defendants North Shore True Value Hardware and Mr. China, Inc., doing business as Mr. China Bridal Registry, the complaint and all cross claims are dismissed insofar as asserted against that defendant, and the action against the remaining defendants is severed.

The plaintiffs commenced this action, inter alia, seeking to recover damages for the injuries sustained by the plaintiff Lizzy Franks when she tripped and fell into a “water depression” in a shopping center parking lot on Northern Boulevard in Little Neck. The plaintiff alleged that each of the defendants leased and operated a store in the shopping center adjacent to the parking lot, and as such, the defendants were all responsible for its maintenance.

[620]*620As a general rule, liability for a dangerous condition on real property must be predicated upon ownership, occupancy, control, or special use of the property (see Welwood v Association for Children With Down Syndrome, 248 AD2d 707, 708 [1998]). The motions of the defendants Mr. China, Inc., doing business as Mr. China Bridal Registry and North Shore True Value Hardware for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against them were properly denied as issues of fact exist as to these defendants’ occupancy, control, and maintenance responsibilities of the area in the parking lot where the accident occurred.

However, the motion of the defendant Eckerd Corp., doing business as Genovese Drug Store, #5514, for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and cross claims insofar as asserted against it was improperly denied since its evidentiary submissions demonstrated that it did not have exclusive possession or control of the parking lot and that it had no right or obligation to maintain that area (see Welwood v Association for Children With Down Syndrome, supra; Millman v Citibank, 216 AD2d 278 [1995]). In opposition, the plaintiffs failed to come forward with any evidence that this defendant had, or was chargeable with, control of the parking lot or that it actually created the dangerous condition (see Feinman v Cantone, 192 AD2d 577 [1993]). Florio, J.P., Santucci, Krausman and Rivera, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Montalvo v. Texas Roadhouse Holdings, LLC
2021 NY Slip Op 07288 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2021)
Yu Ying Zhi v. J-Mart Group, Inc.
2020 NY Slip Op 07249 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2020)
Arshinov v. Gr 10-40, LLC
2019 NY Slip Op 7560 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2019)
Knight v. 177 W. 26 Realty, LLC
2019 NY Slip Op 4685 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2019)
Turano v. Two Hillside Avenue Realty Corp.
2017 NY Slip Op 4313 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)
Futter v. Hewlett Station Yogurt, Inc.
2017 NY Slip Op 2970 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)
Russo v. Frankels Garden City Realty Co.
93 A.D.3d 708 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)
Zaair Nafiz Abdal Wali v. City of New York
71 A.D.3d 1134 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
Starling v. Suffolk County Water Authority
63 A.D.3d 822 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
Pearson v. Parkside Limited Liability Co.
44 A.D.3d 833 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)
Ellers v. Horwitz Family Ltd. Partnership
36 A.D.3d 849 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)
Morgan v. Chong Kwan Jun
30 A.D.3d 386 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
16 A.D.3d 619, 793 N.Y.S.2d 61, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3272, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/franks-v-g-h-real-estate-holding-corp-nyappdiv-2005.