From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hill v. Spitzer

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Dec 21, 1999
267 A.D.2d 149 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)

Opinion

December 21, 1999

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Jerry Crispino, J.), entered October 23, 1998, which granted defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Mark E. Cohen for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Paul N. Hodys for Defendants-Respondents.

SULLIVAN, J.P., ROSENBERGER, NARDELLI, WILLIAMS, FRIEDMAN, JJ.


The hazard to which plaintiff attributes her fall and injury, an uneven, raised and torn area of carpeting on premises owned by defendants, did not constitute a structural and/or design defect violative of a statute (see, Levy v. Daitz, 196 A.D.2d 454). Accordingly, defendants, out-of-possession landlords who, pursuant to a lease, retained the right to reenter the subject premises to make needed repairs but did not undertake to repair or maintain the premises, may not be held liable for plaintiff's harm (see,Manning v. New York Tel. Co., 157 A.D.2d 264).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.


Summaries of

Hill v. Spitzer

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Dec 21, 1999
267 A.D.2d 149 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
Case details for

Hill v. Spitzer

Case Details

Full title:ODIE HILL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. GILBERT SPITZER, et al.…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: Dec 21, 1999

Citations

267 A.D.2d 149 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
700 N.Y.S.2d 16

Citing Cases

Santiago v. City of New York

The law with regard to out-of-possession landlords, and whether they have a duty to a third party such as…