Decided June 29, 2006. Appeal from the 3d Dept: 24 AD3d 1010. Motions For Leave To Appeal. Denied.

Ruger also testified that AMCH maintenance staff are trained in how to clear the access ramps. Thus, defendant met its prima facie burden of demonstrating its entitlement to summary judgment on the basis that it was an out-of-possession landlord (see Holling v. Dawn M., Inc., 24 A.D.3d 1010, 1010–1011, 806 N.Y.S.2d 279 2005, lv. denied 7 N.Y.3d 704, 819 N.Y.S.2d 871, 853 N.E.2d 242 2006; Hinds v. Consolidated Rail Corp., 263 A.D.2d 590, 591–592, 693 N.Y.S.2d 284 1999 ).Contrary to plaintiff's position, the management agreement between defendant and another company is insufficient to meet her shifted burden of raising a triable issue of material fact.

This failure to maintain the sidewalk — premises that are admittedly owned by defendants — could result in a finding of negligence ( see Perrelli v Orlow, 273 AD2d 533, 534-535). Cayea and plaintiff each testified that Cayea shoveled snow from and salted the sidewalk and driveway, raising questions concerning whether defendants exercised control over the driveway and thereby assumed a duty to maintain the driveway as a means of passage for plaintiff, who was their tenant ( see Silverberg v Palmerino, 61 AD3d 1032, 1034-1035; Rossal-Daub v Walter, 58 AD3d 992, 995-996; Holling v Dawn M., Inc., 24 AD3d 1010, 1011, lv denied 7 NY3d 704; Arsenault v Regan Trust, 263 AD2d 754, 755). These questions further precluded a grant of summary judgment.

However, when an allegedly dangerous condition comes about from a contractor's own method and the owner exercises no supervisory control over that operation, liability will not be placed upon the owner under common-law principles ( see Comes v New York State Elec. Gas Corp., 82 NY2d 876, 877; Dorr v General Elec. Co., 235 AD2d 883, 884). Yet, "one who assumes to act, even though not obligated to do so, may thereby become subject to the duty to act carefully" ( Jansen v Fidelity Cas. Co. of N.Y., 79 NY2d 867, 868; see Holling v Dawn M., Inc., 24 AD3d 1010, 1011, lv denied 7 NY3d 704; Castiglione v Village of Ellenville, 291 AD2d 769, 770, lv denied 98 NY2d 604).

When a duty to act is voluntarily assumed, the scope of that duty is to perform the act carefully. Holling v Dawn M., Inc., 24 AD3d 1010 (3rd Dept 2005). A defendant who voluntarily assumes a duty to act with reasonable care toward others may be held liable for breach of that duty.