Opinion
October 1, 1992
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Saratoga County (Brown, J.).
Defendant John T. Roohan leased property to defendant Richard Charbonneau, who operated the premises as a bar and grill. Plaintiff claims that Roohan was negligent in not commencing eviction proceedings against Charbonneau because Roohan knew or should have known of the bar's reputation for "rowdiness" and because Charbonneau failed to maintain liability insurance. Plaintiff was injured when another patron backed into him knocking him to the floor where his right hand hit broken glass.
Even accepting the allegations as true, as we must on this motion to dismiss, plaintiff has nevertheless failed to state a cognizable cause of action against Roohan (see, Greenview Trading Co. v Hershman Leicher, 108 A.D.2d 468). As a general rule, the owner of premises owes no duty to control the conduct of its tenants for the benefit of third persons (Kelleher v Mazzaro, 168 A.D.2d 799, lv denied 78 N.Y.2d 851) and Roohan's relationship with Charbonneau does not fall into a known exception or otherwise mandate a departure from the general rule (see, Cavanaugh v Knights of Columbus Council 4360, 142 A.D.2d 202, lv denied 74 N.Y.2d 604). Liability will be imposed if a landowner knows that he can and has the opportunity to control the conduct of others and is reasonably aware of the necessity for such control (Mangione v Dimino, 39 A.D.2d 128). Here, however, Roohan was not present at the time of the accident and there are no allegations that he had anything to do with the business outside of his status as a lessor or that he exercised any supervision and control over it (see, Cavanaugh v Knights of Columbus Council 4360, supra; Clarke v Unanue, 97 A.D.2d 888; cf., Huyler v Rose, 88 A.D.2d 755). Plaintiff asserts only that because Roohan knew of the nature of the operation of the grill, he should have evicted Charbonneau. Likewise without merit is the claim of negligence based on the lack of liability insurance insofar as that was not a proximate cause of the injury (see, Clarke v Unanue, supra).
Mikoll, J.P., Yesawich Jr., Mercure, Crew III and Casey, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.