From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Morris v. Freudenheim

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Jun 16, 2000
273 A.D.2d 885 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)

Opinion

June 16, 2000.

Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Sconiers, J. — Summary Judgment.

PRESENT: PIGOTT, JR., P. J., GREEN, KEHOE AND LAWTON, JJ.


Order unanimously reversed on the law without costs, motion granted and second amended complaint and cross claims against defendant Robert L. Freudenheim dismissed. Memorandum: Supreme Court erred in denying the motion of Robert L. Freudenheim (defendant) for summary judgment dismissing the second amended complaint and cross claims against him. "An out-of-possession owner who has relinquished control over the premises will not be held liable for subsequent injuries resulting from dangerous conditions on the premises" ( Gomez v. Walton Realty Assocs., 258 A.D.2d 307, 308; see, Bittrolff v. Ho's Dev. Corp., 77 N.Y.2d 896, 898). It is undisputed that defendant relinquished possession and control of the premises to a court-appointed receiver 10 months before the accident and that the premises were purchased at a foreclosure sale nearly five months before the accident. Under those circumstances, liability may be imposed upon defendant only if the allegedly dangerous condition of the elevator existed at the time he relinquished possession and control of the premises "and the new owner has not had a reasonable time to discover the condition, if it was unknown, and to remedy the condition once it is known" ( Bittrolff v. Ho's Dev. Corp., supra, at 898). Although defendant Sibley Real Estate Services, Inc. (Sibley) submitted proof that the allegedly dangerous condition of the elevator existed at the time defendant relinquished possession and control of the premises, defendant established as a matter of law that the new owner was aware of that condition and had a reasonable time to remedy it ( see, Mazurick v. Chalos, 172 A.D.2d 805, 806), and Sibley failed to raise a triable issue of fact.


Summaries of

Morris v. Freudenheim

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Jun 16, 2000
273 A.D.2d 885 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
Case details for

Morris v. Freudenheim

Case Details

Full title:RONALD W. MORRIS AND SHARON E. MORRIS, PLAINTIFFS-RESPONDENTS, v. ROBERT…

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

Date published: Jun 16, 2000

Citations

273 A.D.2d 885 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
709 N.Y.S.2d 312

Citing Cases

Powers v. City of Geneva

Such is the general rule" ( Kilmer v. White , 254 N.Y. 64, 69, 171 N.E. 908 [1930] ). Thus, under that…

Timmany v. Benko

The plaintiffs have not presented evidence that the prior owners retrained any control over the property or…