From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Belotserkovskaya v. Café Natalie

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 23, 2002
300 A.D.2d 521 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)

Opinion

2002-05937

November 22, 2002.

December 23, 2002.

Steven G. Fauth, New York, N.Y. (John H. Shin and Lowell D. Aptman of counsel), for appellant.

Cyrus B. Adler, New York, N.Y. (Alan Schuchatowitz of counsel), for respondent.

Before: GABRIEL M. KRAUSMAN, J.P., LEO F. McGINITY, ROBERT W. SCHMIDT, WILLIAM F. MASTRO, JJ.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant Abdullah Alsaydi appeals, as limited by his brief, from stated portions of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Schneier, J.), dated May 16, 2002, which, inter alia, denied his motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against him.

ORDERED that the order is modified by deleting the provision thereof denying the motion and substituting therefor a provision granting the motion; as so modified the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, the complaint is dismissed insofar as asserted against the appellant, and the action against the remaining defendant is severed.

The plaintiff tripped and fell as she walked over an allegedly defective door saddle on premises owned by the appellant and leased to the third-party defendants, who operated a restaurant at the location known as Café "Natalie."

Although the appellant was an out-of-possession owner who retained the right to reenter the premises for repairs and inspections, he cannot be held liable under a theory of constructive notice in the absence of a "significant structural or design defect that is contrary to a specific statutory safety provision" (Johnson v. Urena Serv. Ctr., 227 A.D.2d 325, 326; see Jackson v. United States Tennis Assn., 294 A.D.2d 470).

The plaintiff failed to allege a violation of any specific statutory provision (see Caiazzo v. Angelone, 236 A.D.2d 351; Deebs v. Rich-Mar Realty Assocs., 248 A.D.2d 185) and in any event, did not establish that the defect was structural in nature (see Kilimnik v. Mirage Rest., 223 A.D.2d 530).

In light of our determination, the appellant's remaining contention is academic.

KRAUSMAN, J.P., McGINITY, SCHMIDT and MASTRO, JJ., concur.


DECISION ORDER


Summaries of

Belotserkovskaya v. Café Natalie

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 23, 2002
300 A.D.2d 521 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)
Case details for

Belotserkovskaya v. Café Natalie

Case Details

Full title:IRINA BELOTSERKOVSKAYA, respondent, v. CAFÉ "NATALIE", defendant, ABDULLAH…

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

Date published: Dec 23, 2002

Citations

300 A.D.2d 521 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)
752 N.Y.S.2d 554

Citing Cases

WHALEY v. JJ REALTY OF NY, LLC

In support of its motion, defendant, JJ Realty, submitted the deposition testimony of its managing member,…

Saunders v. J.P.Z. Realty, LLC

Further, an out-of-possession landlord which retained the right to reenter the premises for repairs and…