Giannattasio v. Han Suk Kang

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Giannattasio v. Han Suk Kang

57 A.D.3d 728, 869 N.Y.2d 595

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

DecidedDecember 16, 2008

StatusPublished

This text of 57 A.D.3d 728 (Giannattasio v. Han Suk Kang) 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

Giannattasio v. Han Suk Kang, 57 A.D.3d 728, 869 N.Y.2d 595 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

[729]*729Contrary to the plaintiffs contentions, the trial court properly interpreted the decisions of this Court in Giannattasio v Han Suk Kang (30 AD3d 374 [2006]), and Giannattasio v Han Suk Kang (30 AD3d 375 [2006]), and limited the evidence at retrial to the plaintiffs claims regarding the alleged defective slope.

The trial court erred, however, in granting the motion of the defendant New York City Off-Track Betting Corporation (hereinafter OTB) pursuant to CPLR 4401 for judgment as a matter of law. “ ‘A trial court’s grant of a CPLR 4401 motion for judgment as a matter of law is appropriate where the trial court finds that, upon the evidence presented, there is no rational process by which the fact trier could base a finding in favor of the nonmoving party ... In considering the motion for judgment as a matter of law, the trial court must afford the party opposing the motion every inference which may properly be drawn from the facts presented, and the facts must be considered in a light most favorable to the nonmovant’ ” (Robinson v 211-11 N, LLC, 46 AD3d 657, 658 [2007], quoting Szczerbiak v Pilat, 90 NY2d 553, 556 [1997]). While it was proper for the trial court to interpret the unambiguous lease dated September 1, 2000, as a matter of law (see Teitelbaum Holdings v Gold, 48 NY2d 51, 56 [1979]; Sumitomo Bank of N.Y. Trust Co. v Town of N. Hempstead, 278 AD2d 402, 403 [2000]), the lease does not in and of itself absolve OTB of potential liability for the alleged defective slope. “ ‘[A] tenant may be held liable for negligently allowing the leased premises to become dangerous, and such potential for liability exists independently of the terms of the lease’ ” (hanger v Orenstein, 295 AD2d 574, 575 [2002], quoting Seifert v Arlona Co., 205 AD2d 679, 680 [1994]; see Cohen v Central Parking Sys., 303 AD2d 353, 354 [2003]). Accordingly, the trial court should have submitted the issue of OTB’s liability for the alleged defective slope to the jury.

The plaintiff’s remaining contentions are without merit. Fisher, J.P., Balkin, McCarthy and Leventhal, JJ., concur.

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

[729]*729Contrary to the plaintiffs contentions, the trial court properly interpreted the decisions of this Court in Giannattasio v Han Suk Kang (30 AD3d 374 [2006]), and Giannattasio v Han Suk Kang (30 AD3d 375 [2006]), and limited the evidence at retrial to the plaintiffs claims regarding the alleged defective slope.

The trial court erred, however, in granting the motion of the defendant New York City Off-Track Betting Corporation (hereinafter OTB) pursuant to CPLR 4401 for judgment as a matter of law. “ ‘A trial court’s grant of a CPLR 4401 motion for judgment as a matter of law is appropriate where the trial court finds that, upon the evidence presented, there is no rational process by which the fact trier could base a finding in favor of the nonmoving party ... In considering the motion for judgment as a matter of law, the trial court must afford the party opposing the motion every inference which may properly be drawn from the facts presented, and the facts must be considered in a light most favorable to the nonmovant’ ” (Robinson v 211-11 N, LLC, 46 AD3d 657, 658 [2007], quoting Szczerbiak v Pilat, 90 NY2d 553, 556 [1997]). While it was proper for the trial court to interpret the unambiguous lease dated September 1, 2000, as a matter of law (see Teitelbaum Holdings v Gold, 48 NY2d 51, 56 [1979]; Sumitomo Bank of N.Y. Trust Co. v Town of N. Hempstead, 278 AD2d 402, 403 [2000]), the lease does not in and of itself absolve OTB of potential liability for the alleged defective slope. “ ‘[A] tenant may be held liable for negligently allowing the leased premises to become dangerous, and such potential for liability exists independently of the terms of the lease’ ” (hanger v Orenstein, 295 AD2d 574, 575 [2002], quoting Seifert v Arlona Co., 205 AD2d 679, 680 [1994]; see Cohen v Central Parking Sys., 303 AD2d 353, 354 [2003]). Accordingly, the trial court should have submitted the issue of OTB’s liability for the alleged defective slope to the jury.

The plaintiff’s remaining contentions are without merit. Fisher, J.P., Balkin, McCarthy and Leventhal, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

57 A.D.3d 728, 869 N.Y.2d 595, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/giannattasio-v-han-suk-kang-nyappdiv-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack