You are here: / / Out-Of-Possession Landlord Not Liable for Slip and Fall
,

Out-Of-Possession Landlord Not Liable for Slip and Fall

In affirming the grant of summary judgment to an out-of-possession landlord in a slip and fall case, the Second Department explained:

“An out-of-possession landlord’s duty to repair a dangerous condition on leased premises is imposed by statute or regulation, by contract, or by a course of conduct” … . Here, the defendant established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that it was an out-of-possession landlord, that it was not contractually obligated to maintain the subject parking lot, that it did not endeavor to maintain the subject parking lot, and that it did not owe the plaintiff a duty by virtue of any applicable statute or regulation … . Castillo v Wil-Cor Realty Co, Inc, 2013 NY Slip Op 05871, 2nd Dept 9-18-13

 

You might also like
FAILURE TO PROPERLY ASSESS A PATIENT’S RISK OF FALLING AND NEED FOR SUPERVISION SOUNDS IN MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, NOT NEGLIGENCE (SECOND DEPT).
Question of Fact Whether Structure on a Sports Field (Pole Vault Box) Was Open and Obvious Such that No Protection or Warning Was Required for Pedestrians
THE CONTRACT PROPERLY ACCORDED THE ARBITRATOR THE AUTHORITY TO DETERMINE “GATEWAY” QUESTIONS OF ARBITRABILITY; NONSIGNATORIES ARE COMPELLED TO ARBITRATE (SECOND DEPT).
RECORDING THE DEED IS NOT NECESSARY FOR THE TRANSFER OF TITLE; THEREFORE A FORGED SIGNATURE ON THE TRANSFER DOCUMENT DOES NOT RENDER THE DEED VOID (SECOND DEPT).
PROPERTY OWNER’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT DECLARING THAT THE INSURER WAS OBLIGATED TO REIMBURSE THE PROPERTY OWNER FOR COSTS AND ATTORNEY’S FEES INCURRED IN DEFENDING THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
REDUCTION OF PETITIONER-SCHOOL-DISTRICT EMPLOYEE’S RETIREMENT HEALTH BENEFITS BELOW THE LEVEL AFFORDED ACTIVE EMPLOYEES VIOLATES INSURANCE LAW 4235 (SECOND DEPT). ​
THE EIGHT-INCH WIDE BEAM CLAIMANT WAS MOVING ALONG WHEN HE FELL WAS THE FUNCTIONAL EQUIVALENT OF A SCAFFOLD, BRINGING THE ACTION WITHIN THE SCOPE OF LABOR LAW 240(1); THE SAFETY LINE PROVIDED TO CLAIMANT DID NOT PROTECT HIM FROM THE FALL; CLAIMANT WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT).
Preclusion Proper Remedy for Failure to Comply with Discovery Deadlines and Requests

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 Not Entitled to Attorneys Fees in Shareholder Derivative Action Because... Plaintiff Unable to Identify Cause of Fall