Rosado v. Neubert Realty Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Rosado v. Neubert Realty Corp.

254 A.D.2d 209, 679 N.Y.S.2d 134, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11344

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

DecidedOctober 27, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 254 A.D.2d 209 (Rosado v. Neubert Realty 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

Rosado v. Neubert Realty Corp., 254 A.D.2d 209, 679 N.Y.S.2d 134, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11344 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Frank Diaz, J.), entered August 6, 1996, which, upon the prior grant of defendant’s motion made at the close of plaintiffs case pursuant to CPLR 4404, dismissed the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The complaint was properly dismissed by the trial court at the close of plaintiffs case since the evidence did not permit the jury to rationally conclude that defendant, an out-of-possession landlord, was legally responsible for plaintiffs harm (Johnson v Urena Serv. Ctr., 227 AD2d 325, 326, lv denied 88 NY2d 814; see also, Velazquez v Tyler Graphics, 214 AD2d 489). At trial, there was no testimony that defendant landlord was contractually obligated to make repairs and/or maintain the parking lot where plaintiff was injured. Nor was there evidence from which it could have been rationally inferred that defendant reserved a right to reenter the premises for purposes of inspection and maintenance or repair, or that the complained of defect involved a significant structural and/or design defect violating a specific statutory safety provision. Concur — Milonas, J. P., Ellerin, Wallach and Tom, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Frank Diaz, J.), entered August 6, 1996, which, upon the prior grant of defendant’s motion made at the close of plaintiffs case pursuant to CPLR 4404, dismissed the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The complaint was properly dismissed by the trial court at the close of plaintiffs case since the evidence did not permit the jury to rationally conclude that defendant, an out-of-possession landlord, was legally responsible for plaintiffs harm (Johnson v Urena Serv. Ctr., 227 AD2d 325, 326, lv denied 88 NY2d 814; see also, Velazquez v Tyler Graphics, 214 AD2d 489). At trial, there was no testimony that defendant landlord was contractually obligated to make repairs and/or maintain the parking lot where plaintiff was injured. Nor was there evidence from which it could have been rationally inferred that defendant reserved a right to reenter the premises for purposes of inspection and maintenance or repair, or that the complained of defect involved a significant structural and/or design defect violating a specific statutory safety provision. Concur — Milonas, J. P., Ellerin, Wallach and Tom, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

254 A.D.2d 209, 679 N.Y.S.2d 134, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11344, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rosado-v-neubert-realty-corp-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack