Malloy v. Friedland

77 A.D.3d 583, 911 N.Y.S.2d 290
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedOctober 28, 2010
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 77 A.D.3d 583 (Malloy v. Friedland) 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
Malloy v. Friedland, 77 A.D.3d 583, 911 N.Y.S.2d 290 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2010).

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Joan Madden, J.), entered July 24, 2009, which granted the landlord defendants’ motion for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff asserts he was injured in 2007 when he fell into a trapdoor opening while shopping at Hamilton Heights Deli on Manhattan’s upper west side. According to the record, the trapdoor had been left open by one of the tenant’s employees.

It is well settled that “[a] landlord is not generally liable for negligence with respect to the condition of property after its transfer of possession and control to a tenant unless the landlord is either contractually obligated to make repairs or maintain the premises, or has a contractual right to reenter, inspect and make needed repairs at the tenant’s expense, and liability is based on a significant structural or design defect that is contrary to a specific statutory safety provision” (Babich v R.G.T. Rest. Corp., 75 AD3d 439, 440 [2010]). Although the [584]*584lease agreement does state that the landlord has the right to reenter to make repairs, plaintiff has failed to show that the Friedland defendants violated any specific statutory safety provision. Moreover, “[a] properly functioning trapdoor that is left open by someone under the tenant’s control is not a structural defect, either pursuant to the lease or under case law” (Baez v Barnard Coll., 71 AD3d 585, 586 [2010]).

Pursuant to the lease, the tenant had sole responsibility for maintaining the area where plaintiff alleges he sustained his injuries. Therefore, as out-of-possession owners, the Friedland defendants cannot be held liable under these circumstances (see Dexter v Horowitz Mgt., 267 AD2d 21, 22 [1999]; see generally Lewis v Sears, Roebuck & Co., 35 AD3d 273 [2006]). Concur— Tom, J.P., Friedman, Catterson, Renwick and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.

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

Related

Ebrahim v. Twin Dev., LLC
2025 NY Slip Op 02411 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2025)
Lopez v. Metropolitan Transp. Auth.
2024 NY Slip Op 33963(U) (New York Supreme Court, New York County, 2024)
Hughey v. Brown Bros. Harriman & Co.
2024 NY Slip Op 33430(U) (New York Supreme Court, New York County, 2024)
Martinez v. 3801 Equity Co., LLC
2017 NY Slip Op 7938 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)
Varga v. North Realty Co.
123 A.D.3d 639 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)
Brignoni v. 601 West 162 Associates, L.P.
93 A.D.3d 417 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)
Devlin v. Blaggards III Restaurant Corp.
80 A.D.3d 497 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
77 A.D.3d 583, 911 N.Y.S.2d 290, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/malloy-v-friedland-nyappdiv-2010.