You are here: / / Out-Of-Possession Landlord Not Liable for Missing Light in Stairwell
,

Out-Of-Possession Landlord Not Liable for Missing Light in Stairwell

The Second Department determined the out-of-possession landlord could not be liable for a missing light in a stairwell, the alleged cause of plaintiff’s fall:

“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 entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by establishing that it was an out-of-possession landlord, that it was not contractually obligated to maintain the lighting at the premises or repair the alleged hazardous condition, that it did not endeavor to perform such maintenance, and that it did not violate any relevant statute or regulation… . Grimaldi v 221 Arlington Realty, LLC, 2013 NY Slip Op 03969, 2nd Dept, 6-5-13

SLIP AND FALL

 

You might also like
Controverted Custody-Related Issues Cannot Be Decided Based Upon “In Chambers” Conferences, A Full Hearing Is Required
THE ADMINISTRATOR’S MOTION TO BE SUBSTITUED AS PLAINTIFF IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION, INITIALLY DENIED, SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED UPON THE MOTION TO RENEW; THE CRITERIA FOR A MOTION TO RENEW, AND A MOTION TO BE SUBSTITUTED FOR A DECEASED PARTY ARE EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT).
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER ASSAILANT WAS AN INTRUDER WHO ENTERED BUILDING THROUGH A BROKEN DOOR.
DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE AN ADEQUATE EXCUSE FOR FAILURE TO ANSWER THE COMPLAINT, CRITERIA EXPLAINED, MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A DEFAULT JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED.
Striking Answer for Spoliation of Evidence Too Severe a Sanction—Spoliation Was Not “Willful or Contumacious,” Both Parties Were Prejudiced by the Loss, Plaintiff Was Not Deprived of Means of Proving the Claim
THE SECOND DEPARTMENT SEARCHED THE RECORD AND AWARDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT TO A NONAPPEALING PARTY IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE (SECOND DEPT).
Escalating Intrusiveness of Police-Encounter with Defendant Justified Under DeBour Criteria—Criteria Explained and Applied
THE POLICE WITNESSES AT THE SUPPRESSION HEARING WERE NOT CREDIBLE; THEREFORE DEFENDANT’S SUPPRESSION MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED AND THE INDICTMENT DISMISSED (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

Appreciation of Value of Marital Residence Should Have Been Reduced by Cost... Only Sellers’, Not Buyers’, Agent Can Be Liable for Failure to Disclose...