Paniagua v. Bridge Food Center Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Paniagua v. Bridge Food Center Corp.

59 A.D.3d 356, 874 N.Y.S.2d 433

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

DecidedFebruary 26, 2009

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 59 A.D.3d 356 (Paniagua v. Bridge Food Center 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

Paniagua v. Bridge Food Center Corp., 59 A.D.3d 356, 874 N.Y.S.2d 433 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (John A. Barone, J.), entered June 23, 2008, insofar as it denied defendant Rachel Bridge Corp.’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and cross claims against it, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the cross motion granted to the extent of dismissing the complaint and cross claims as against Rachel Bridge. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly.

In this personal injury action, Rachel Bridge, the owner of the premises it leased to defendant Bridge Food Center, established its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law where plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to where the accident oc[357]*357curred or which party was responsible for correcting the alleged defect. The record demonstrates (and plaintiffs do not dispute) that the injured party fell at the door saddle to the premises. Pursuant to defendants’ lease, tenant Bridge Food Center was responsible for maintaining nonstructural defects and the sidewalk adjacent to the premises.

As an out-of-possession landlord, Rachel Bridge was not responsible for the maintenance of the door saddle, which was not structural in nature, and plaintiffs failed to cite any specific statutory violation (see Belotserkovskaya v Café “Natalie”, 300 AD2d 521 [2002]). Concur—Saxe, J.P., Catterson, McGuire, Moskowitz and Acosta, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (John A. Barone, J.), entered June 23, 2008, insofar as it denied defendant Rachel Bridge Corp.’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and cross claims against it, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the cross motion granted to the extent of dismissing the complaint and cross claims as against Rachel Bridge. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly.

In this personal injury action, Rachel Bridge, the owner of the premises it leased to defendant Bridge Food Center, established its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law where plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to where the accident oc[357]*357curred or which party was responsible for correcting the alleged defect. The record demonstrates (and plaintiffs do not dispute) that the injured party fell at the door saddle to the premises. Pursuant to defendants’ lease, tenant Bridge Food Center was responsible for maintaining nonstructural defects and the sidewalk adjacent to the premises.

As an out-of-possession landlord, Rachel Bridge was not responsible for the maintenance of the door saddle, which was not structural in nature, and plaintiffs failed to cite any specific statutory violation (see Belotserkovskaya v Café “Natalie”, 300 AD2d 521 [2002]). Concur—Saxe, J.P., Catterson, McGuire, Moskowitz and Acosta, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

59 A.D.3d 356, 874 N.Y.S.2d 433, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/paniagua-v-bridge-food-center-corp-nyappdiv-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack