Summary
In Jackson, the First Department granted dismissal to defendants holding that by presenting the pleadings, a lease and a deposition, the defendants conclusively showed which parties owned and managed the subject building, and established that the defendants had no connection to or interest in the property (Jackson at 495).
Summary of this case from Ronay v. FTG Co. U.S.Opinion
11544 Index 20776/14E
05-21-2020
Antoine JACKSON, Plaintiff–Respondent, v. SAVOY PARK OWNER LLC, et al., Defendants, AFP Forty One Corp., et al., Defendants–Appellants.
Gannon Rosenfarb & Drossman, New York (Lisa L. Gokhulsingh of counsel), for appellants. Edelman Krasin & Jaye, PLLC, Westbury (Aaron D. Fine of counsel), for respondent.
Gannon Rosenfarb & Drossman, New York (Lisa L. Gokhulsingh of counsel), for appellants.
Edelman Krasin & Jaye, PLLC, Westbury (Aaron D. Fine of counsel), for respondent.
Acosta, P.J., Renwick, Webber, Gesmer, JJ.
Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Norma Ruiz, J.), entered September 24, 2019, which denied the motion of defendants AFP Forty One Corp., AFP Thirty Eight Corp. and AFP Thirty Seven Corp. (collectively AFP defendants) for, inter alia, summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against them, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion granted. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly.
Plaintiff was injured when, while descending exterior steps at the back entrance of a building in the Savoy Park complex, he slipped and fell down the stairs. In support of their motion for summary judgment, AFP defendants submitted evidence, including the pleadings, a lease and deposition testimony, demonstrating that the Savoy Park defendants owned and managed the building, that two of the AFP defendants had no connection with the property, and that one of them had a land lease interest. Inasmuch as plaintiff presented no evidence to dispute AFP defendants' showing that they did not have or had completely parted with any possession or control of the premises, AFP defendants were entitled to summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against them since they did not breach any duty to maintain the premises (see Henry v. Hamilton Equities, Inc., 34 N.Y.3d 136, 142–145, 114 N.Y.S.3d 21, 137 N.E.3d 476 [2019] ; compare Worth Distribs. v. Latham, 59 N.Y.2d 231, 238, 464 N.Y.S.2d 435, 451 N.E.2d 193 [1983] ).