From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Santiago v. Atlantic Refining Mktg. Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
May 28, 1993
193 A.D.2d 1057 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)

Opinion

May 28, 1993

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Erie County, Wolfgang, J.

Present — Denman, P.J., Green, Balio, Fallon and Davis, JJ.


Order insofar as appealed from unanimously reversed on the law with costs, motion denied and complaint reinstated. Memorandum: Plaintiff was injured when the spare tire he was inflating exploded at an Atlantic Service Station owned by defendant Atlantic Refining and Marketing Corporation. We conclude that defendant has not established its entitlement to summary judgment. The record reveals that defendant owned the premises where plaintiff was injured and that it required the lessee, David Horbinski, to agree to extensive and detailed "standards of operation" and "safety rules" in operating the premises as an Atlantic Service Station. Defendant also required its lessee to complete a training course offered by defendant, and to submit to defendant's inspection and maintenance of certain equipment on the premises. Under those circumstances we conclude that there are triable issues of fact on the degree of defendant's control and possession of the premises (McLain v Turi Landfill, 147 A.D.2d 620; Rochette v Town of Newburgh, 88 A.D.2d 614).


Summaries of

Santiago v. Atlantic Refining Mktg. Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
May 28, 1993
193 A.D.2d 1057 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)
Case details for

Santiago v. Atlantic Refining Mktg. Corp.

Case Details

Full title:ALFRED R. SANTIAGO et al., Appellants, v. ATLANTIC REFINING AND MARKETING…

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

Date published: May 28, 1993

Citations

193 A.D.2d 1057 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)
598 N.Y.S.2d 405