From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Rankin v. Milazzo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 4, 1987
130 A.D.2d 474 (N.Y. App. Div. 1987)

Opinion

May 4, 1987

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Di Paola, J.).


Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff John Rankin, in the course of purchasing gasoline at the Two Guys Service Center, slipped and fell in what was described as an indentation in the pavement. The subject premises have since 1968 been subleased by Texaco to the defendant Milazzo and his gasoline and automobile repair station, Two Guys Service Center, Inc. Pursuant to the sublease entered into between Texaco and Milazzo, the sublessee was obligated to maintain the premises in good repair. No "change, alteration or substitution in the demised premises, buildings or equipment" could be made by the sublessee without the prior written consent of Texaco.

The mere fact that Texaco's corporate records do not contain any indication of the defective condition is an insufficient basis upon which to grant summary judgment on its behalf. While it was standard policy for the sublessee to clean the premises, Texaco had the right to oversee the condition of the premises. If the station was dirty, Texaco's marketing representative was empowered to direct the sublessee to clean it up. Significantly, Texaco's marketing representative visited the station once a week in order to inspect conditions (cf., Silver v. Brodsky, 112 A.D.2d 213, 214). This gives rise to the question of whether the marketing representative saw the subject defect, or, in the exercise of reasonable diligence should have seen it, but nevertheless failed to report it. In light of the fact that a Texaco representative was present at the station with regular frequency and that the depression in the pavement which caused the plaintiff John Rankin's fall was already covered with grease, a trier of fact could reasonably infer that the subject condition existed for a sufficient period of time within which Texaco could have acquired actual notice of it. Under the circumstances, Texaco's motion for summary judgment was properly denied. Thompson, J.P., Lawrence, Weinstein and Rubin, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Rankin v. Milazzo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 4, 1987
130 A.D.2d 474 (N.Y. App. Div. 1987)
Case details for

Rankin v. Milazzo

Case Details

Full title:JOHN RANKIN et al., Respondents, v. VINCENT J. MILAZZO, JR., et al.…

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

Date published: May 4, 1987

Citations

130 A.D.2d 474 (N.Y. App. Div. 1987)