Santiago v. Port Authority of New York & New Jersey

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Santiago v. Port Authority of New York & New Jersey

203 A.D.2d 217, 611 N.Y.S.2d 174, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4407

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided April 28, 1994·Published·Cited by 6 cases

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward H. Lehner, J.), entered on or about June 25, 1992, which, inter alia, granted defendant The Port Authority’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The general rule is that a landlord out of possession may not be held liable for plaintiffs injuries in the absence of specific violations of the Administrative Code not here demonstrated (see, Romano v Browne, 180 AD2d 515, 516). Plaintiffs reliance on Guzman v Haven Plaza Hous. Dev. Fund Co. (69 NY2d 559) is misplaced. In Guzman, specific Administrative Code violations concerning illumination and handrail clearance were established which violations were obligations of the landlord under the general provision to maintain a safe building (supra, at 564-565). Here, plaintiff offers no evidence of specific Administrative Code violations.

Moreover, as we held in Love v Port Auth. (168 AD2d 222), under similar circumstances, The Port Authority is in any event unaffected by any provision of the Administrative Code since The Port Authority functions as a State Agency exempt from municipal regulation. Concur — Sullivan, J. P, Carro, Ellerin, Wallach and Rubin, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward H. Lehner, J.), entered on or about June 25, 1992, which, inter alia, granted defendant The Port Authority’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The general rule is that a landlord out of possession may not be held liable for plaintiffs injuries in the absence of specific violations of the Administrative Code not here demonstrated (see, Romano v Browne, 180 AD2d 515, 516). Plaintiffs reliance on Guzman v Haven Plaza Hous. Dev. Fund Co. (69 NY2d 559) is misplaced. In Guzman, specific Administrative Code violations concerning illumination and handrail clearance were established which violations were obligations of the landlord under the general provision to maintain a safe building (supra, at 564-565). Here, plaintiff offers no evidence of specific Administrative Code violations.

Moreover, as we held in Love v Port Auth. (168 AD2d 222), under similar circumstances, The Port Authority is in any event unaffected by any provision of the Administrative Code since The Port Authority functions as a State Agency exempt from municipal regulation. Concur — Sullivan, J. P, Carro, Ellerin, Wallach and Rubin, JJ.

Santiago v. Port Authority of New York & New Jersey, 203 A.D.2d 217, 611 N.Y.S.2d 174, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4407 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

203 A.D.2d 217 (Santiago v. Port Authority of New York & New Jersey) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related