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
Co-Tenants of Dog Owner Can Be Strictly Liable for Harboring a Dog with Vicious Propensities—Co-Tenants’ Motions for Summary Judgment Should Have Been Denied
Petitioners’ Properties Not Close Enough to Proposed Development to Confer Standing to Allege Violations of the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA)
KNEE INJURY CAUSED BY CARRYING A HEAVY STEEL BEAM DOWN STAIRS IS NOT A COVERED ACCIDENT UNDER LABOR LAW 240 (1) (SECOND DEPT).
Child’s Move To Connecticut Did Not Strip New York of Jurisdiction and Did Not Justify Finding that New York Was an Inconvenient Forum
MOTION TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT BY NAMING PLAINTIFF IN HER CAPACITY AS THE REPRESENTATIVE OF HER HUSBAND’S ESTATE, WHERE THE ORIGINAL COMPLAINT WAS ERRONEOUSLY BROUGHT IN HER INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY, WAS PROPERLY GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
INSTALLING ELECTRIC CABLES IS CONSTRUCTION WORK WITHIN THE MEANING OF LABOR LAW 241(6); PLAINTIFF, WHO WAS STRUCK IN THE EYE BY A CABLE, SUFFICIENTLY DEMONSTRATED THE EYE-PROTECTION-EQUIPMENT REGULATION IN THE INDUSTRIAL CODE APPLIED (SECOND DEPT).
MOTHER PRESENTED SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE OF A CHANGE IN CIRCUMSTANCES TO JUSTIFY AWARDING HER SOLE CUSTODY OF THE CHILDREN (SECOND DEPT).
FAMILY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE ORDERED THE PARTIES TO EQUALLY SHARE THE COSTS OF FATHER’S SUPERVISED VISITATION WITHOUT EVALUATING THE PARTIES’ FINANCES (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 © 2026 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...