You are here: / / LEASE WITH PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYER DID NOT REQUIRE LANDLORD TO MAINTAIN...
,

LEASE WITH PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYER DID NOT REQUIRE LANDLORD TO MAINTAIN THE YARD OUTSIDE THE BUILDING, PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED WHEN HE STEPPED INTO A HOLE DUG BY PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYER IN THE YARD, LANDLORD’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined the defendant landlord’s motion for summary judgment was properly granted in this personal injury action. The property was leased to plaintiff’s employer. Plaintiff’s employer was doing construction work in the yard outside the building. Plaintiff fell into a hole dug by his employer in the yard. The lease imposed repair responsibilities on the landlord for the building only, not the yard:

​

The subject lease provided that defendant “shall maintain and repair the public portions of the building, both interior and exterior [and that]. . .[t]enant shall, throughout the term of this lease, take good care of the demised premises. . .and at its sole cost and expense, make all non-structural repairs. . .when needed to preserve them in good working order and condition.” Here, testimony established that the accident did not occur in a public portion of the building, but rather in the backyard that was exclusively controlled by plaintiff’s employer, thereby not implicating an area that defendant had retained the responsibility to maintain … . Similarly, the evidence demonstrated that, in actual practice, defendant did nothing to show that it had the authority to maintain or repair the accident premises … .

Furthermore, although the lease states that defendant had the right to reenter the premises to make repairs, plaintiff has failed to show that defendant violated a specific statutory safety provision, or that the hole in which he stepped was a structural defect … .

Plaintiff’s reference to an OSHA provision that was allegedly violated by defendant is unavailing, because defendant was not plaintiff’s employer … . Martinez v 3801 Equity Co., LLC, 2017 NY Slip Op 07938, First Dept 11-14-17

 

NEGLIGENCE (LANDLORD-TENANT, LEASE WITH PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYER DID NOT REQUIRE LANDLORD TO MAINTAIN THE YARD OUTSIDE THE BUILDING, PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED WHEN HE STEPPED INTO A HOLE DUG BY PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYER IN THE YARD, LANDLORD’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY GRANTED (FIRST DEPT))/LANDLORD-TENANT (NEGLIGENCE, LEASE WITH PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYER DID NOT REQUIRE LANDLORD TO MAINTAIN THE YARD OUTSIDE THE BUILDING, PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED WHEN HE STEPPED INTO A HOLE DUG BY PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYER IN THE YARD, LANDLORD’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY GRANTED (FIRST DEPT))

You might also like
The “Following the Settlements” Doctrine and “Following Form” Clauses as They Apply to Reinsurers Discussed in Some Depth
A WAIVER OF APPEAL DOES NOT PRECLUDE A CHALLENGE TO A PROBATION CONDITION ALLOWING WARRANTLESS SEARCHES; THE CONDITION ALLOWING ALLOWING WARRANTLESS SEARCHES FOR DRUGS WAS NOT REASONABLY RELATED TO DEFENDANT’S REHABILITATION (FIRST DEPT).
ASSAULT AND BATTERY CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST THE POLICE DO NOT REQUIRE A SPECIAL DUTY OWED TO PLAINTIFF (FIRST DEPT).
Res Ipsa Loquitur Doctrine Can Apply to an Elevator Maintenance Company Even Where there Is No Proof the Company Had Actual or Constructive Notice of Elevator Misleveling
Inexperience or Lack of Sophistication Does Not Toll the Statute of Limitations Re: the Discovery of Fraud/The Test for When the Fraud Should Have Been Discovered in an Objective One
PLAINTIFF’S NEGLIGENCE ACTION AGAINST A SECURITY COMPANY HIRED BY KMART SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED IN A FIGHT WITH A KMART EMPLOYEE, PLAINTIFF WAS NOT A THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARY OF THE CONTRACT BETWEEN KMART AND THE SECURITY COMPANY, PLAINTIFF DID NOT RELY ON THE PERFORMANCE OF THE SECURITY COMPANY’S DUTIES, AND THE SECURITY COMPANY DID NOT FULLY DISPLACE KMART’S DUTY TO PROVIDE SECURITY (ESPINAL FACTORS) (FIRST DEPT).
TESTIMONY AT THE FACT FINDING HEARING ABOUT THE IDENTIFICATION PROCEDURE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED BECAUSE IT DIFFERED SIGNIFICANTLY FROM THE PROCEDURE DESCRIBED IN THE VOLUNTARY DISCLOSURE FORM.
FAMILY COURT HAD THE AUTHORITY TO ORDER VISITATION WITH THE CHILDREN’S FORMER FOSTER MOTHER; A STRONG DISSENT ARGUED THE COURT DID NOT HAVE THE POWER TO ORDER VISITATION WITH A “LEGAL STRANGER” (FIRST 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

ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT’S TRUCK WAS IN THE WRONG LANE, THE POSITION OF THE... LANDLORD DID NOT HAVE A DUTY TO INSULATE A PIPE BECAUSE IT WAS PART OF THE HEATING...