From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Krentsel v. Zorina

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 18, 2002
292 A.D.2d 506 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)

Opinion

2001-01366

Submitted March 1, 2002.

March 18, 2002.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Dabiri, J.), dated January 10, 2001, as granted the cross motion of the defendants Sheldon R. Carroll and Sheila Carroll for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them.

Napoli, Kaiser Bern, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Elizabeth Montesano of counsel), for appellants.

Steven G. Fauth, New York, N.Y. (Max W. Gershweir of counsel), for respondents.

Before: SONDRA MILLER, J.P., GABRIEL M. KRAUSMAN, HOWARD MILLER, THOMAS A. ADAMS, JJ.


ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

It is well settled that an out-of-possession owner is not liable for injuries sustained at its premises unless it retains control over the premises or is contractually obligated to repair unsafe conditions (see, Angwin v. SRF Partnership, L.P., 285 A.D.2d 570, 571; Wilson v. Laung Hang Realty Corp., 281 A.D.2d 414; Rivera v. Wood, 276 A.D.2d 682; Berado v. City of Mount Vernon, 262 A.D.2d 513, 514; Carvano v. Morgan, 270 A.D.2d 222). The defendants Sheldon R. Carroll and Sheila Carroll (hereinafter the defendants), the owners of the premises where the injured plaintiff allegedly fell, made a prima facie showing of their entitlement to summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them. The plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact that the defendants either retained control of the premises or were contractually obligated to keep the property in good repair. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendants' cross motion.

The plaintiffs' remaining contentions are without merit.

S. MILLER, J.P., KRAUSMAN, H. MILLER and ADAMS, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Krentsel v. Zorina

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 18, 2002
292 A.D.2d 506 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)
Case details for

Krentsel v. Zorina

Case Details

Full title:EFIM KRENTSEL, ET AL., appellants, v. SALON ZORINA, INC., defendant…

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

Date published: Mar 18, 2002

Citations

292 A.D.2d 506 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)
739 N.Y.S.2d 199

Citing Cases

Richardson v. Yasuda Bank Trust Co.

It is well settled that "the person in possession and control of property is best able to identify and…