Ledesma v. AMA Grocery, Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ledesma v. AMA Grocery, Corp.

2016 NY Slip Op 8187, 145 A.D.3d 477, 42 N.Y.S.3d 157

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

DecidedDecember 6, 2016

Docket2412 303152/13

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 2016 NY Slip Op 8187 (Ledesma v. AMA Grocery, 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

Ledesma v. AMA Grocery, Corp., 2016 NY Slip Op 8187, 145 A.D.3d 477, 42 N.Y.S.3d 157 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Wilma Guzman, J.), entered January 14, 2016, which denied defendants-appellants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against them, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendants-appellants argue that they were out-of-possession landlords who were not responsible to maintain the area where plaintiff fell on a raised metal strip at the edge of a step at the entrance to the tenant’s deli/grocery.

An out-of-possession landlord is generally not liable for negligence with respect to the condition of property after transfer of possession and control to the tenant unless the landlord “(1) is contractually obligated to make repairs or maintain the premises, or (2) has a contractual right to reenter, inspect and make needed repairs and liability is based on a significant structural or design defect that is contrary to a specific statutory safety provision” (Vasquez v The Rector, 40 AD3d 265, 266 [1st Dept 2007]; Ross v Betty G. Reader Revocable Trust, 86 AD3d 419, 420 [1st Dept 2011]).

“Where an owner is not completely out of possession, it may be held liable as long as it had adequate notice of and a reasonable opportunity to repair the dangerous condition” (Federal Ins. Co. v Evans Constr. of N.Y. Corp., 257 AD2d 508, 509 [1st Dept 1999]).

It was undisputed that the lease agreement made appellant landlords responsible for repairs to the interior and exterior public portion of the premises. The court properly concluded that there was an issue of fact concerning whether the metal strip was affixed to a step that was located in the public por *478 tion of the premises, and the photographs submitted by the parties do not lay this issue to rest.

Concur—Richter, J.R, Manzanet-Daniels, Feinman, Kapnick and Gesmer, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Wilma Guzman, J.), entered January 14, 2016, which denied defendants-appellants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against them, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendants-appellants argue that they were out-of-possession landlords who were not responsible to maintain the area where plaintiff fell on a raised metal strip at the edge of a step at the entrance to the tenant’s deli/grocery.

An out-of-possession landlord is generally not liable for negligence with respect to the condition of property after transfer of possession and control to the tenant unless the landlord “(1) is contractually obligated to make repairs or maintain the premises, or (2) has a contractual right to reenter, inspect and make needed repairs and liability is based on a significant structural or design defect that is contrary to a specific statutory safety provision” (Vasquez v The Rector, 40 AD3d 265, 266 [1st Dept 2007]; Ross v Betty G. Reader Revocable Trust, 86 AD3d 419, 420 [1st Dept 2011]).

“Where an owner is not completely out of possession, it may be held liable as long as it had adequate notice of and a reasonable opportunity to repair the dangerous condition” (Federal Ins. Co. v Evans Constr. of N.Y. Corp., 257 AD2d 508, 509 [1st Dept 1999]).

It was undisputed that the lease agreement made appellant landlords responsible for repairs to the interior and exterior public portion of the premises. The court properly concluded that there was an issue of fact concerning whether the metal strip was affixed to a step that was located in the public por *478 tion of the premises, and the photographs submitted by the parties do not lay this issue to rest.

Concur—Richter, J.R, Manzanet-Daniels, Feinman, Kapnick and Gesmer, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2016 NY Slip Op 8187, 145 A.D.3d 477, 42 N.Y.S.3d 157, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ledesma-v-ama-grocery-corp-nyappdiv-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack