Valenti v. 400 Carlls Path Realty Corp.

52 A.D.3d 696, 861 N.Y.S.2d 357
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJune 17, 2008
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 52 A.D.3d 696 (Valenti v. 400 Carlls Path 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
Valenti v. 400 Carlls Path Realty Corp., 52 A.D.3d 696, 861 N.Y.S.2d 357 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Rebolini, J.), dated April 23, 2007, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The injured plaintiff allegedly slipped and fell over a hazardous condition in a parking lot owned by the defendant. An out-of-possession owner or lessor is not liable for injuries that occur on the premises unless the owner or lessor has retained control over the premises or is contractually obligated to repair unsafe conditions (see Lindquist v C & C Landscape Contrs., Inc., 38 AD3d 616 [2007]). Here, the defendant established its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that it was an out-of-possession landlord which had no duty to maintain or repair the parking lot (see Yadegar v International Food Mkt., 37 AD3d 595 [2007]; Seney v Kee Assoc., 15 AD3d 383 [2005]; Berado v City of Mount Vernon, 262 AD2d 513 [697]*697[1999]). Although the defendant retained the right to enter the premises to make repairs, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the defendant violated a specific statutory provision (see O’Connell v L.B. Realty Co., 50 AD3d 752 [2008]; Ahmad v City of New York, 298 AD2d 473, 474 [2002]; Kilimnik v Mirage Rest., 223 AD2d 530 [1996]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Prudenti, P.J., Miller, Garni and Chambers, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Aponte v. Lee
2021 NY Slip Op 00539 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2021)
Chalouh v. Lati, LLC
2016 NY Slip Op 7156 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)
Osorio v. Kenart Realty, Inc.
42 Misc. 3d 5 (Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)
McElroy v. Bernstein
72 A.D.3d 757 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
Euvino v. Loconti
67 A.D.3d 629 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
Vecchio v. Miller Place Realty, LLC
61 A.D.3d 675 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
Mccomish v. Luciano's Italian Restaurant
56 A.D.2d 534 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
52 A.D.3d 696, 861 N.Y.S.2d 357, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/valenti-v-400-carlls-path-realty-corp-nyappdiv-2008.