From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Canela v. Foodway Supermarket

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Dec 22, 1992
188 A.D.2d 416 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)

Opinion

December 22, 1992

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Bronx County (Bertram Katz, J.).


Plaintiff was shopping at a supermarket when she was struck by a food scale which fell from its ceiling suspension. The injured plaintiff brought this action against the supermarket and its landlord. When plaintiff moved for sanctions and certain other relief addressed to the pleadings, the landlord defendants cross-moved for summary judgment, inter alia. Those defendants appeal the denial of their cross motion.

The law is well settled that an owner/lessor is not liable to third parties injured on demised premises unless said lessor has retained control or is contractually obligated to make repairs or maintain the premises (Lafleur v Power Test Realty Co. Ltd. Partnership, 159 A.D.2d 691; Schlesinger v Rockefeller Ctr., 119 A.D.2d 462). The lease gave the landlord a right to enter for the purpose of making inspections, alterations and repairs, but nowhere is plaintiff able to point to any contractual obligations to make such inspection and repair. A landlord's contractual reservation of a right of reentry for general inspection purposes, unrelated to any affirmative obligation to maintain or repair, does not confer control over the premises sufficient to impose liability for a subsequently arising dangerous condition (see, Mobile Home Estates v Preferred Mut. Ins. Co., 105 A.D.2d 883, 884), particularly where the dangerous condition arises concerning a piece of lawful equipment installed by the tenant (see, Couvertier v Arcuri Realty, 161 A.D.2d 381, 382-383), over which the landlord has no control (Echeverri v Cain, 124 A.D.2d 780, lv denied 70 N.Y.2d 609).

An affidavit of the landlord's president, together with a copy of the lease, demonstrated prima facie entitlement to summary judgment (see, Clarke v Unanue, 97 A.D.2d 888), easily withstanding challenge by a bare affirmation of plaintiff's attorney, who had no personal knowledge of the facts (Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 N.Y.2d 557). The landlords cannot be liable in this circumstance, as a matter of law.

Concur — Wallach, J.P., Kupferman, Kassal and Rubin, JJ.


Summaries of

Canela v. Foodway Supermarket

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Dec 22, 1992
188 A.D.2d 416 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)
Case details for

Canela v. Foodway Supermarket

Case Details

Full title:ANIBAL CANELA, Respondent, v. FOODWAY SUPERMARKET et al., Defendants, and…

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

Date published: Dec 22, 1992

Citations

188 A.D.2d 416 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)
591 N.Y.S.2d 834

Citing Cases

Rodriguez v. E P Assoc.

It is well settled that generally an owner who leases property is not liable for injuries sustained upon his…

Feder v. Target Stores

Generally, an out-of-possession landlord may not be held liable for a third party's injuries on its premises…