Fuentes v. Ardenwood Enterprises

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Fuentes v. Ardenwood Enterprises

74 A.D.3d 1279, 903 N.Y.S.2d 237

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

DecidedJune 29, 2010

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 74 A.D.3d 1279 (Fuentes v. Ardenwood Enterprises) 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

Fuentes v. Ardenwood Enterprises, 74 A.D.3d 1279, 903 N.Y.S.2d 237 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Pastoressa, J), dated September 30, 2009, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

“ ‘An out-of-possession landlord is not liable for injuries that occur on its premises unless it retains control over the premises or is contractually bound to repair unsafe conditions’ ” (Lalicata v 39-15 Skillman Realty Co., LLC, 63 AD3d 889, 890 [2009], quoting Taylor v Lastres, 45 AD3d 835, 835 [2007]). Here, the Supreme Court properly denied the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, since they failed to submit evidence sufficient to establish, prima facie, that they had no contractual duty to repair the alleged defective condition and that, in any event, they had no notice of the alleged defective condition (see Lalicata v 39-15 Skillman Realty Co., LLC, 63 AD3d 889 [2009]; Rosas v 397 Broadway Corp., 19 AD3d 574 [2005]; Winby v Kustas, 7 AD3d 615 [2004]; Sutherland v Whylie, 292 AD2d 518 [2002]). Covello, J.P., Angiolillo, Leventhal and Sgroi, 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, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Pastoressa, J), dated September 30, 2009, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

“ ‘An out-of-possession landlord is not liable for injuries that occur on its premises unless it retains control over the premises or is contractually bound to repair unsafe conditions’ ” (Lalicata v 39-15 Skillman Realty Co., LLC, 63 AD3d 889, 890 [2009], quoting Taylor v Lastres, 45 AD3d 835, 835 [2007]). Here, the Supreme Court properly denied the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, since they failed to submit evidence sufficient to establish, prima facie, that they had no contractual duty to repair the alleged defective condition and that, in any event, they had no notice of the alleged defective condition (see Lalicata v 39-15 Skillman Realty Co., LLC, 63 AD3d 889 [2009]; Rosas v 397 Broadway Corp., 19 AD3d 574 [2005]; Winby v Kustas, 7 AD3d 615 [2004]; Sutherland v Whylie, 292 AD2d 518 [2002]). Covello, J.P., Angiolillo, Leventhal and Sgroi, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

74 A.D.3d 1279, 903 N.Y.S.2d 237, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fuentes-v-ardenwood-enterprises-nyappdiv-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack