Vivas v. VNO Bruckner Plaza LLC

113 A.D.3d 401, 978 N.Y.2d 150
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJanuary 7, 2014
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 113 A.D.3d 401 (Vivas v. VNO Bruckner Plaza LLC) 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
Vivas v. VNO Bruckner Plaza LLC, 113 A.D.3d 401, 978 N.Y.2d 150 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2014).

Opinion

[402]*402The private sidewalk upon which plaintiff fell was not part of the premises demised under a store lease between Payless, the tenant, and defendant VNO, the landlord. The lease described the demised premises as ground floor space “in the building” depicted in an annexed diagram. In fact, the lease provided that the sidewalk was part of common facilities that were subject to VNO’s “exclusive control and management.” This case is controlled by Rothstein v 400 E. 54th St. Co. (51 AD3d 431 [1st Dept 2008]), in which we held that the lessee of a condominium’s commercial unit had no duty to maintain stairs that were part of the common elements but not part of its leased premises. Accordingly, Payless was not under any contractual, statutory or common-law duty to maintain VNO’s sidewalk. Shkreli v Boston Props., Inc. (102 AD3d 613 [1st Dept 2013]), which plaintiff cites, is distinguishable because it involves an accident that occurred “in the commercial premises leased by” one of the moving defendants (id. at 614). Zito v 241 Church St. Corp. (223 AD2d 353 [1st Dept 1996]), also cited by plaintiff, is equally distinguishable as it speaks to a tenant’s “common-law duty to remove dangerous defects from its premises” (id. at 355 [emphasis added]). As noted above, the sidewalk where the accident occurred was not part of the premises leased to Payless. As Payless had no duty to maintain the sidewalk, there is no need to address the issue of whether it had constructive notice of a dangerous condition. Concur — Acosta, J.P, Renwick, Saxe, DeGrasse and Richter, JJ.

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

Related

Katz-Wisnudel v. Lower Manhattan Dialysis Ctr., Inc.
2026 NY Slip Op 00089 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2026)
Adriana G. v. Kipp Wash. Hgts. Middle Sch.
2018 NY Slip Op 6787 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2018)
Williams v. Esor Realty Co.
117 A.D.3d 480 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
113 A.D.3d 401, 978 N.Y.2d 150, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/vivas-v-vno-bruckner-plaza-llc-nyappdiv-2014.