Robinson v. Temple Israel of Lawrence

Opinion

Robinson v Temple Israel of Lawrence

2026 NY Slip Op 05042

August 19, 2026

Appellate Division, Second Department

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

This decision is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Khalid Robinson, appellant,

v

Temple Israel of Lawrence, respondents (and a third-party action).

Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department

Decided on August 19, 2026

2023-01075, (Index No. 612991/20)

Angela G. Iannacci, J.P.

William G. Ford

Carl J. Landicino

Susan Quirk, JJ.

Dell & Dean, PLLC (Joseph G. Dell and Horn Appellate Group, Brooklyn, NY [Scott T. Horn and Lauren Bryant], of counsel), for appellant.

McManus Ateshoglou Aiello & Apostolakos PLLC, New York, NY (Peter Naber of counsel), for respondents.

McCarthy & Associates, Melville, NY (Marianne Arcieri of counsel), for third-party defendant Main Event-Mauzone Caterers, LLC.

[*1]

DECISION & ORDER

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Dicca T. Pineda-Kirwan, J.), dated December 23, 2022. The order, insofar as appealed from, granted that branch of the defendants' motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against the defendant Marion & Aaron Gural JCC, Inc.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs to the respondents.

In June 2018, the plaintiff allegedly slipped and fell on a puddle of water in front of a refrigerator while working for a caterer at a wedding venue located in Lawrence. The premises where the accident purportedly occurred was a two-story building comprised of, among other things, a temple operated by the defendant Temple Israel of Lawrence (hereinafter TIL) on the first floor and a catering hall on the second floor. At the time of the accident, the defendant Marion & Aaron Gural JCC, Inc. (hereinafter JCC), owned the premises, and the plaintiff was employed by third-party defendant Carlyle of Lawrence, LLC (hereinafter Carlyle), a catering company. Third-party defendant Mansion at Lawrence, LLC (hereinafter Mansion), was a company allegedly created pursuant to an agreement between Carlyle and third-party defendant Main Event-Mauzone Caterers, LLC (hereinafter Main Event). Mansion coordinated catering services in certain areas of the premises, including the area where the accident occurred, pursuant to a written agreement with JCC.

The plaintiff commenced this action against TIL and JCC to recover damages for personal injuries, alleging, among other things, that the defendants were negligent in their ownership, control, and maintenance of the premises. Thereafter, JCC commenced a third-party action against Main Event, Carlyle, and Mansion, inter alia, for contractual indemnification, common-law indemnification, and contribution. JCC and TIL moved, among other things, for summary judgment [*2]dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against JCC. In an order dated December 23, 2022, the Supreme Court, inter alia, granted that branch of the motion. The plaintiff appeals.

Generally, a landowner owes a duty of care to maintain his or her property in a reasonably safe condition (see Gronski v County of Monroe, 18 NY3d 374, 379; Yongxi Li v Pei Xing Huang, 244 AD3d 1282). "That duty is premised on the landowner's exercise of control over the property, as 'the person in possession and control of property is best able to identify and prevent any harm to others'" (Gronski v County of Monroe, 18 NY3d at 379, quoting Butler v Rafferty, 100 NY2d 265, 270; see Yongxi Li v Pei Xing Huang, 244 AD3d at 1282). "It has been held uniformly that control is the test which measures generally the responsibility in tort of the owner of real property" (Ritto v Goldberg, 27 NY2d 887, 889). "Accordingly, a landowner who has transferred possession and control is generally not liable for injuries caused by dangerous conditions on the property" (Yehia v Marphil Realty Corp., 130 AD3d 615, 616 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Yongxi Li v Pei Xing Huang, 244 AD3d at 1282). "However, an out-of-possession landlord may be liable for injuries occurring on the premises if 'it has retained control of the premises, is contractually obligated to perform maintenance and repairs, or is obligated by statute to perform such maintenance and repairs'" (Yehia v Marphil Realty Corp., 130 AD3d at 616, quoting Denermark v 2857 W. 8th St. Assoc., 111 AD3d 660, 661).

Here, both the agreement between JCC and Mansion that was in effect at the time of the accident and the parties' course of conduct demonstrated that JCC transferred possession and control of the premises such that it was not liable for the plaintiff's alleged injuries. The agreement stated, inter alia, that Mansion would provide all "necessary personnel, material and equipment . . . and perform the services" to maintain and clean the area where the plaintiff's fall allegedly occurred. Moreover, a facilities supervisor employed by JCC testified during his deposition that JCC did not use any part of the premises that was used by Mansion and that it was understood that the maintenance of that area was not the responsibility of JCC. A maintenance worker employed by Carlyle testified at his deposition that he was responsible for maintaining the area where the plaintiff allegedly fell. Under these circumstances, JCC established that it relinquished control of the portion of the premises where the plaintiff's accident allegedly occurred and had not assumed a duty to maintain that portion of the premises in a reasonably safe condition (see Miranda v 1320 Entertainment, Inc., 230 AD3d 755, 757). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact.

In light of our determination, we need not reach Main Event's remaining contention.

IANNACCI, J.P., FORD, LANDICINO and QUIRK, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Darrell M. Joseph

Clerk of the Court