Opinion
2002-05960
Argued April 1, 2003.
April 21, 2003.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Golia, J.), dated March 27, 2002, which granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
Mitchell R. Schrage Associates, PLLC, New York, N.Y. (Jeffrey A. Kaplan of counsel), for appellants.
Robin, Schepp, Yuhas, Doman Harris (Mauro Goldberg Lilling, LLP, Great Neck, N.Y. [Caryn L. Lilling and Jennifer B. Ettenger] of counsel), for respondent.
Before: DAVID S. RITTER, J.P., SONDRA MILLER, GLORIA GOLDSTEIN, ROBERT W. SCHMIDT, JJ.
DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
In the absence of a duty imposed by statute, an out-of-possession landlord's reservation of a right to enter a leased premises to make repairs is insufficient to give rise to liability for a subsequently arising dangerous condition (see Guzman v. Haven Plaza Hous. Dev. Fund Co., 69 N.Y.2d 559; Angwin v. SRF Partnership, 285 A.D.2d 570; Ortiz v. RVC Realty Co., 253 A.D.2d 802). Although reservation of a right of entry may constitute sufficient retention of control to impose liability upon an out-of-possession landlord for injuries caused by a dangerous condition which constitutes a violation of a duty imposed by statute, this exception applies only where "a specific statutory violation exists and there is a significant structural or design defect" (Fucile v. Grand Union Co., 270 A.D.2d 227; see also Belotserkovskaya v. Café "Natalie", 300 A.D.2d 521; Eckers v. Suede, 294 A.D.2d 533; Stark v. Port Auth. of N.Y. and N.J., 224 A.D.2d 681). Here, the alleged window defect which caused the accident was not a significant structural defect (see Javier v. Ludin, 293 A.D.2d 448; Angwin v. SRF Partnership, supra; Belotserkovskaya v. Cafe Natalie, supra; Kilimnik v. Mirage Rest., 223 A.D.2d 530), and the plaintiffs have not alleged a violation of any specific statutory safety provision (see Ahmad v. City of New York, 298 A.D.2d 473; Taylor v. Park Towers Sh Co., 293 A.D.2d 668; Kilimnik v. Mirage Rest., supra; Ortiz v. RVC Realty Co., supra). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendant landlord's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
RITTER, J.P., S. MILLER, GOLDSTEIN and SCHMIDT, JJ., concur.