You are here: / / OUT-OF-POSSESSION LANDLORD NOT LIABLE FOR FALL ON A WET FLOOR IN THE LEASED...
,

OUT-OF-POSSESSION LANDLORD NOT LIABLE FOR FALL ON A WET FLOOR IN THE LEASED PREMISES.

The Second Department determined defendant out-of-possession landlord was entitled to summary judgment in this slip and fall case. Plaintiff, in a bar on leased premises, fell on a bathroom floor alleged to have been wet with cleaning solution and water:

“An out-of-possession landlord can be held liable for injuries that occur on its premises only if the landlord has retained control over the premises and if the landlord is contractually or statutorily obligated to repair or maintain the premises or has assumed a duty to repair or maintain the premises by virtue of a course of conduct” … . Here, [the landlord] established, prima facie, that he was an out-of-possession landlord with no contractual obligation to maintain the premises, and that he neither endeavored to perform such maintenance nor owed any duty to the plaintiff by virtue of any statute upon which the plaintiff relies … . Mendoza v Manila Bar & Rest. Corp., 2016 NY Slip Op 04698, 2nd Dept 6-15-16

 

NEGLIGENCE (OUT-OF-POSSESSION LANDLORD NOT LIABLE FOR FALL ON A WET FLOOR IN THE LEASED PREMISES)/LANDLORD-TENANT (OUT-OF-POSSESSION LANDLORD NOT LIABLE FOR FALL ON A WET FLOOR IN THE LEASED PREMISES)/OUT-OF-POSSESSION LANDLORD (OUT-OF-POSSESSION LANDLORD NOT LIABLE FOR FALL ON A WET FLOOR IN THE LEASED PREMISES)

You might also like
JUDGE EXHIBITED BIAS AGAINST MOTHER AND INTERFERED EXCESSIVELY IN THE CUSTODY HEARING; NEW HEARING ORDERED BEFORE A DIFFERENT JUDGE (SECOND DEPT).
DISTRIBUTOR’S AND SELLER’S MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS PRODUCTS LIABILITY AND NEGLIGENT DESIGN ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, PLAINTIFF’S OWN ACTIONS CONSTITUTED THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF PLAINTIFF’S INJURY AND THE DANGER WAS OPEN AND OBVIOUS (SECOND DEPT).
ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNER NOT LIABLE FOR HOLE IN BRICKWORK PUBLIC SIDEWALK IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE (SECOND DEPT).
Family Assessment Response (FAR) Reports Are Not Subject to Expunction (Expungement) Prior to the Expiration of the 10-Year Statutory Period
DEFENDANT WAS PROPERLY PROHIBITED FROM CROSS-EXAMINING A POLICE OFFICER ABOUT FALSE ARREST AND POLICE BRUTALITY LAWSUITS FILED AGAINST THE OFFICER (SECOND DEPT).
AN ORDER DISMISSING AN ACTION DOES NOT CONCLUDE THE ACTION WHICH CAN ONLY BE ACCOMPLISHED BY FINAL JUDGMENT ENTERED BY THE CLERK; HERE, ALTHOUGH THE ACTION HAD BEEN DISMISSED BY AN ORDER, ABSENT A JUDGMENT THE ACTION REMAINED VIABLE AND THE COURT SHOULD HAVE CONSIDERED PLAINTIFF’S POST-DISMISSAL MOTION ON THE MERITS (SECOND DEPT).
PEOPLE’S APPLICATION FOR AN UPWARD DEPARTURE NOT SUPPORTED BY CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE; EVIDENCE DEFENDANT WAS CHARGED BUT NEVER INDICTED OR CONVICTED DOES NOT MEET THE CLEAR AND CONVINCING STANDARD (SECOND DEPT).
EXCLUSIVITY OF A WORKERS’ COMPENSATION REMEDY PRECLUDED SUIT AGAINST AN EMPLOYEE OF A PERSON EMPLOYED BY PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYER, THE NYC DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE (SECOND DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

QUESTION OF FACT RAISED UNDER DOCTRINE OF RES IPSA LOQUITUR, PLAINTIFF CONTRACTED... OUT-OF-POSSESSION LANDLORD DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT DID NOT CREATE THE DANGEROUS...