Garcia v. Home Center, Inc.

2 Citing cases

  1. Windvand v. 4612 13th Avenue Realty Corp.

    269 A.D.2d 527 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)   Cited 1 times

    The appellant established that it was an out-of-possession landlord who did not retain sufficient control of the leased premises, and was not contractually obligated to repair and/or maintain the leased premises (see, Baker v. Getty Oil Co., 242 A.D.2d 644). Thus, it was not liable for any injuries that occurred on the leased premises absent a showing by the plaintiff of a factual question as to whether it violated a duty imposed upon it by a statute and/or ordinance (see, Garcia v. Home Ctr., 240 A.D.2d 629;Felder v. Wank, 227 A.D.2d 442). Since the plaintiff failed to adduce evidence of any such alleged violation or to raise a triable issue of fact as to any other basis upon which liability could be imposed, the Supreme Court erred in denying the appellant's motion for summary judgment (see, Toth v. Pergament Home Ctr., 250 A.D.2d 599; Felder v. Wank, supra; Pensabene v. Incorporated Vil. of Val. Stream, 202 A.D.2d 486).

  2. Young v. Crescent Coffee, Inc.

    2019 N.Y. Slip Op. 35078 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2019)

    Here, Mr. Semel demonstrated his prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by establishing that he was an out-of-posscssion landlord with no contractual obligations to perform repairs (see generally Dener mark. 111 A.D.3d at 661). While during Mr. Young's deposition he conclusively asserted that trucking terminals are to maintain bumpers on the loading docks because "it's law" and plaintiffs' bill of particular alleges that the loading bay was out of compliance with proper loading dock bay regulations, plaintiffs fail to allege any specific statutory violation which would obligate Mr. Semel nor do plaintiffs proffer any statutory provisions in opposition to defendants Semel's motion (see Garcia v Home Ctr., 240 A.D.2d 629, 63012d Dept 1997]; see also Couduris, 31 A.D.3d at 687).