You are here: / / THE TERMS OF THE LEASE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE DEFENDANT OUT-OF-POSSESSION...
, ,

THE TERMS OF THE LEASE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE DEFENDANT OUT-OF-POSSESSION LANDLORD DID NOT HAVE A DUTY TO MAKE NONSTRUCTURAL FLOOR REPAIRS; THE LANDLORD’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court in this slip and fall case, determined the terms of the lease raised a question of fact whether the out-of-possession landlord was required to repair nonstructural floor defects:

“An out-of-possession landlord is not liable for injuries that occur on its premises unless the landlord has retained control over the premises and has a ‘duty imposed by statute or assumed by contract or a course of conduct'” … . “Where the terms of an agreement are unambiguous, interpretation is a question of law for the court” … . Here, according to the lease agreement, the landlord was required to “make all structural, exterior walls, floor and roof repairs and replacements to Tenant’s Building.” Contrary to the defendant’s contention, pursuant to the lease agreement, its duty to repair the floor was not limited to floor conditions which were structural in nature, and it failed to establish, prima facie, that it had no duty to repair the alleged nonstructural condition at issue … . Weidner v Basser-Kaufman 228, LLC, 2023 NY Slip Op 00126, Second Dept 1-11-23

Practice Point: The lease provided the out-of-possession landlord was required to “make all structural, exterior walls, floor and roof repairs and replacements to Tenant’s Building.” The landlord was not entitled to summary judgment in this slip and fall case on the ground the lease did not create a duty to make nonstructural floor repairs.

 

You might also like
WHEN THE COUNTY FAILED TO RESPOND TO PETITIONER’S APPEAL OF THE DENIAL OF A FOIL REQUEST WITHIN TEN DAYS, THE COUNTY WAS DEEMED TO HAVE “CONSTRUCTIVELY DENIED” THE APPEAL; AT THAT POINT PETITIONER HAD EXHAUSTED ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES AND WAS FREE TO COMMENCE A CPLR ARTICLE 78 PROCEEDING (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE NOTE SUBMITTED BY THE BANK TO DEMONSTRATE STANDING TO FORECLOSE WAS THE NOTE SHE SIGNED (SECOND DEPT).
HERE PLAINTIFF BANK FAILED TO PROVE THAT THE RPAPL 1304 NOTICE INCLUDED A LIST OF AT LEAST FIVE HOUSING COUNSELING AGENCIES IN THE REGION WHERE DEFENDANT LIVED; FAILURE TO DEMONSTRATE STRICT COMPLIANCE WITH THE RPAPL 1304 NOTICE REQUIREMENTS REQUIRED DENIAL OF THE BANK’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT).
DNA Reports Did Not Violate Right to Confrontation; Reports Admissible as Business Records
SUPREME COURT SHOULD HAVE GRANTED PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT, DESPITE THE PASSAGE OF SIX YEARS SINCE THE ACTION WAS COMMENCED, THE COURT DOES NOT EXAMINE THE MERITS OF THE PLEADING UNLESS THE LACK OF MERIT IS CLEAR AND FREE FROM DOUBT (SECOND DEPT).
HERE, IN SEEKING LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM AGAINST A CITY HOSPITAL ALLEGING MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, THE PETITIONER DID NOT SUBMIT THE MEDICAL RECORDS; THEREFORE THE PETITIONER DID NOT SHOW THAT THE HOSPITAL HAD TIMELY KNOWLEDGE OF THE CLAIM; LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT). ​
THE RPAPL 1304 NOTICE REQUIREMENTS WERE CHANGED BETWEEN THE TIME THE NOTICE WAS SENT TO THE DEFENDANTS AND WHEN THE FORECLOSURE PROCEEDINGS WERE BROUGHT; THEREFORE THE RPAPL 1304 NOTICE WAS DEFECTIVE (SECOND DEPT).
TOWN’S FAILURE TO REMOVE ICE AND SNOW IS NOT AN AFFIRMATIVE ACT OF NEGLIGENCE WHICH IS EXEMPT FROM THE WRITTEN NOTICE REQUIREMENT (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

PLAINTIFFS’ COUNSEL’S GOOD-FAITH AFFIRMATION DID NOT INCLUDE DETAILS... NO ONE OBJECTED TO THE VERDICT SHEET BEFORE THE VERDICT AND JUROR AFFIDAVITS...