You are here: / / A MANAGING AGENT IS NOT LIABLE FOR INJURY CAUSED BY A DANGEROUS CONDITION...
, , ,

A MANAGING AGENT IS NOT LIABLE FOR INJURY CAUSED BY A DANGEROUS CONDITION ON THE MANAGED PROPERTY UNLESS THE MANAGING AGENT EXERCISES COMPLETE AND EXCLUSIVE CONTROL OVER THE OPERATION OF THE PROPERTY (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the property managing agent did not exercise complete and exclusive control of the operation of the property and therefore could not be held liable for plaintiff’s trip and fall over a stub-up pipe protruding from a step:

Supreme Court should have granted that branch of the defendants’ motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against CBRE [the managing agent] on the ground that CBRE does not own, operate, or control the premises. “Where, as here, a managing agent is accused of nonfeasance which causes injury to a third party, it is subject to liability only where it has complete and exclusive control of the management and operation of the property in question” … . “A managing agent is not in complete and exclusive control of the premises where the owner has reserved to itself a certain amount of control in the written agreement” … .

Here, CBRE established, prima facie, that it was a managing agent of the premises and that the management agreement was not so comprehensive and exclusive as to displace the duty of the owner of the premises to maintain the premises safely … . Quezada v CBRE, Inc., 2024 NY Slip Op 01829, Second Dept 4-3-24

Practice Point: A managing agent is not liable for injury caused by a dangerous condition on the managed property unless the agent exercises complete and exclusive control over the operation of the property.

 

You might also like
ABSENCE OF SAFETY RAIL ON SCAFFOLDING ENTITLED PLAINTIFF TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION.
PLAINTIFF’S DEMAND FOR MONETARY DAMAGES AND EQUITABLE RELIEF IN THIS EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION CASE DID NOT WAIVE THE RIGHT TO A JURY TRIAL; PLAINTIFF COULD BE MADE WHOLE ENTIRELY BY A MONETARY AWARD (SECOND DEPT). ​
DEFENSE COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE FOR NOT MOVING TO SUPPRESS CREDIT CARDS SEIZED DURING THE EXECUTION OF A SEARCH WARRANT WHICH WERE NOT WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THE WARRANT; THE INCRIMINATING NATURE OF THE CREDIT CARDS WAS NOT IMMEDIATELEY APPARENT (SECOND DEPT). ​
DENIAL OF SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR A GAS STATION WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE (SECOND DEPT
PROOF OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304 WAS INSUFFICIENT; THE BANK’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
Validating Petition Not Sufficiently Particularized
“Big Apple” Map Provided City with Written Notice of a Tree-Well Defect in a Sidewalk/Notice of Claim Was Sufficient Even Though It Did Not Specifically Mention the Tree-Well Defect
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER EMPLOYEE WAS ACTING WITHIN THE SCOPE OF HIS EMPLOYMENT WHEN THE CAR ACCIDENT OCCURRED.

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 THERE WAS ADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE BY FATHER, THERE... HERE PLAINTIFF CORPORATION, RC, DID NOT EXIST WHEN THE REAL ESTATE CONTRACT...