From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hood v. John Hancock Mutual Life Ins. Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 5, 1995
216 A.D.2d 269 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)

Opinion

June 5, 1995

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Silverman, J.).


Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, the complaint is dismissed insofar as it is asserted against the defendant John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance Company, and the cross claim of the defendant Citibank, N.A., is dismissed.

The defendant John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance Company (hereinafter John Hancock) leased a parcel of land it owned in Pelham Manor to Barbara Realty Corp. (hereinafter Barbara Realty) for the construction of a shopping center. Under the terms of this ground lease, the tenant was obligated "to keep the Property * * * and ways in good and clear order and condition [and to] make all necessary or appropriate repairs * * * thereof". Barbara Realty, in turn, subleased a building on the premises to the defendant Citibank, N.A. (hereinafter Citibank).

The plaintiff Debra Hood was allegedly injured when she slipped and fell upon a walkway in the shopping center, adjacent to premises subleased by Citibank. An action was thereafter commenced against both Citibank and John Hancock. John Hancock moved for summary judgment, arguing that it could not be held liable for the injuries at issue. We now reverse the order denying that motion.

In general, a landlord is not liable for conditions upon property after the transfer of possession unless the landlord is obligated, contractually or otherwise, to keep the property maintained and/or in good repair and has failed to exercise reasonable care in the performance of that obligation (see, Putnam v. Stout, 38 N.Y.2d 607; Schlesinger v. Rockefeller Ctr., 119 A.D.2d 462). Here, John Hancock, an out-of-possession landlord on a 99-year ground lease, proffered an unrebutted prima facie case that it had no duty, contractual or otherwise, to maintain or repair the walkway at issue. Accordingly, its motion for summary judgment should have been granted (see, Winegrad v. New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 N.Y.2d 851, 853; Zuckerman v. City of New York, 49 N.Y.2d 557, 562-563; CPLR 3212 [b]). Rosenblatt, J.P., Ritter, Copertino and Santucci, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Hood v. John Hancock Mutual Life Ins. Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 5, 1995
216 A.D.2d 269 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)
Case details for

Hood v. John Hancock Mutual Life Ins. Co.

Case Details

Full title:DEBRA HOOD et al., Respondents, v. JOHN HANCOCK MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE…

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

Date published: Jun 5, 1995

Citations

216 A.D.2d 269 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)
628 N.Y.S.2d 148

Citing Cases

Lopez v. Mount Kisco Country Club Realty Corp.

The case law and cases upon which defendant relies involve the situation not presented here of a truly…

Cregan v. Greenlawn Plaza Corporation

We affirm. "In general, a landlord is not liable for conditions upon property after the transfer of…