You are here: / / HERE THE LEASE MADE THE OUT-OF-POSSESSION LANDLORD RESPONSIBLE FOR STRUCTURAL...
, ,

HERE THE LEASE MADE THE OUT-OF-POSSESSION LANDLORD RESPONSIBLE FOR STRUCTURAL REPAIRS AND MADE THE THE TENANT RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL NON-STRUCTURAL REPAIRS; THE CRACKED STEP WAS NOT A STRUCTURAL DEFECT; THE FACT THAT THE LANDLORD WAS AWARE OF THE DEFECT WAS IRRELEVANT (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant out-of-possession landlord’s motion for summary judgment in this slip and fall case should have been granted. The court noted that if, due to the provisions of the lease, an out-of-possession landlord is not responsible for the repair of a defect, the fact that the landlord had notice of the defect is irrelevant:

“An out-of-possession landlord is generally not liable for negligence with respect to the condition of the demised premises unless it ‘(1) is contractually obligated to make repairs or maintain the premises or (2) has a contractual right to reenter, inspect and make needed repairs and liability is based on a significant structural or design defect that is contrary to a specific statutory safety provision'” … .Here, defendant established that it was an out of possession landlord with no contractual obligation to make repairs or maintain the restaurant premises. Pursuant to Paragraph 4 of the lease agreement, all non-structural repairs to the premises were to be made by the tenant restaurant at its sole cost and expense. Moreover, the cracked step at issue was not a significant structural or design defect that is contrary to a specific statutory safety provision … .

In response, plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact sufficient to defeat defendant’s motion. Plaintiff’s assertion that there is an issue of fact as to whether defendant had actual notice of the cracked step on which plaintiff fell is without merit. An out of possession landlord may not be held liable even if it had notice of the defective condition prior to the accident … . Padilla v Holrod Assoc. LLC, 2023 NY Slip Op 02082, First Dept 4-25-23

Practice Point: By the terms of the lease, the out-of-possession landlord was only responsible for structural repairs. The cracked step in this slip and fall case was not a structural defect. The fact that the landlord was aware of the defect was irrelevant.

 

You might also like
STATEMENTS ATTRIBUTED TO PLAINTIFF PROPERLY REDACTED FROM HOSPITAL RECORDS; EXPERT TESTIMONY DISCLOSED DAYS BEFORE TRIAL PROPERLY PRECLUDED.
ALTHOUGH THE PARENTS HAD BEEN FOUND TO HAVE ABUSED THE CHILDREN, THEY HAVE DEMONSTRATED THEY ARE LOVING AND CARING PARENTS; IN LIGHT OF THE CHILDREN’S EMOTIONAL PROBLEMS ASSOCIATED WITH FOSTER CARE, THE MOTION FOR A TRIAL DISCHARGE TO THE PARENTS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).
Plaintiff-Passenger’s Injury In an Illegal Drag-Race Not Actionable—Under the Facts, Public Policy Precluded Plaintiff from Bringing Suit
PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).
THE PEOPLE DID NOT ACT WITH DUE DILIGENCE TO SEEK A DNA TEST, DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS BASED ON A SPEEDY TRIAL VIOLATION PROPERLY GRANTED.
THE DEFENDANT DID NOT SUBMIT ACTUAL MEASUREMENTS OF THE DEFECT WHICH CAUSED PLAINTIFF’S FALL; THE PHOTOGRAPHS AND THE TESTIMONY THAT THE DEFECT WAS ONE-INCH IN HEIGHT WAS NOT ENOUGH TO PROVE THE DEFECT WAS TRIVIAL AS A MATTER OF LAW; DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT). ​
PURPORTED ORAL AGREEMENT TO PURCHASE ART WORKS BY PLAINTIFF PETER BEARD BARRED BY THE STATUTE OF FRAUDS, PAYMENTS ALLEGEDLY MADE TO PLAINTIFF WERE NOT UNEQUIVOCALLY REFERABLE TO THE ALLEGED CONTRACT (FIRST DEPT).
Insurer Must Demonstrate Compliance with 30-Day Notice Requirement Re: an Independent Medical Examination (IME)

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

THE TRANSFER OF REAL PROPERTY TO DECEDENT’S CHILDREN WAS A VALID EXERCISE... ​ PLAINTIFF IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE NOTICE OF FORECLOSURE...