Hausmann v. UMK, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Hausmann v. UMK, Inc.

296 A.D.2d 336, 744 N.Y.S.2d 404, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7397

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

DecidedJuly 11, 2002

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 296 A.D.2d 336 (Hausmann v. UMK, Inc.) 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

Hausmann v. UMK, Inc., 296 A.D.2d 336, 744 N.Y.S.2d 404, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7397 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Kenneth Thompson, Jr., J.), entered on or about October 17, 2001, which denied defendant 5582 Broadway Realty Co.’s (5582 Broadway) motion for summary judgment, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the motion granted, and the action against this defendant dismissed. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment in favor of defendant-appellant, dismissing the complaint as against it.

Appellant 5582 Broadway is the owner of a commercial premises in the Bronx where plaintiff alleges she fell on a welcome mat outside the building. The mat is owned and has consistently been maintained by two lessees who operate a store in the building, Patgo Stationery (Patgo) and UMK, Inc. (UMK).

Defendant 5582 Broadway is an out-of-possession landlord with a general right of reentry pursuant to a provision in the lease, and thus cannot be held liable for general maintenance defects, but only for structural failures or specific statutory violations (Raynor v 666 Fifth Ave. Ltd. Partnership, 232 AD2d 226). This out-of-possession landlord has not accepted responsibility, either pursuant to paragraph 58 of the rider, or paragraph 4 of its lease with the tenants, for the condition of the welcome mat and rug runner. These two items are owned, maintained and within the exclusive control of its lessees (Raynor, supra [tenant in possession has sole control over hole in carpet that lay within demised premises and was usually covered by an employee-placed runner]; Aprea v Carol Mgt. Corp., 190 AD2d 838 [same]).

Further, there is no evidence that 5582 Broadway either habitually, or even occasionally, reentered the property to assume any control over building maintenance, such as to impute liability for its1 lessees’ inadequately secured rug (compare, Dimas v 160 Water St. Assoc., 191 AD2d 290). Concur — Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Andidas, Ellerin and Rubin, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Kenneth Thompson, Jr., J.), entered on or about October 17, 2001, which denied defendant 5582 Broadway Realty Co.’s (5582 Broadway) motion for summary judgment, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the motion granted, and the action against this defendant dismissed. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment in favor of defendant-appellant, dismissing the complaint as against it.

Appellant 5582 Broadway is the owner of a commercial premises in the Bronx where plaintiff alleges she fell on a welcome mat outside the building. The mat is owned and has consistently been maintained by two lessees who operate a store in the building, Patgo Stationery (Patgo) and UMK, Inc. (UMK).

Defendant 5582 Broadway is an out-of-possession landlord with a general right of reentry pursuant to a provision in the lease, and thus cannot be held liable for general maintenance defects, but only for structural failures or specific statutory violations (Raynor v 666 Fifth Ave. Ltd. Partnership, 232 AD2d 226). This out-of-possession landlord has not accepted responsibility, either pursuant to paragraph 58 of the rider, or paragraph 4 of its lease with the tenants, for the condition of the welcome mat and rug runner. These two items are owned, maintained and within the exclusive control of its lessees (Raynor, supra [tenant in possession has sole control over hole in carpet that lay within demised premises and was usually covered by an employee-placed runner]; Aprea v Carol Mgt. Corp., 190 AD2d 838 [same]).

Further, there is no evidence that 5582 Broadway either habitually, or even occasionally, reentered the property to assume any control over building maintenance, such as to impute liability for its1 lessees’ inadequately secured rug (compare, Dimas v 160 Water St. Assoc., 191 AD2d 290). Concur — Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Andidas, Ellerin and Rubin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

296 A.D.2d 336, 744 N.Y.S.2d 404, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7397, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hausmann-v-umk-inc-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack