Opinion
No. 11/299–300.
2011-12-23
Ana OVIEDO, Plaintiff–Appellant–Cross–Respondent, v. SUMMER MANAGEMENT CO., LLC and Milbrook Properties, Ltd., Defendants–Respondents–Cross–Appellants, and Hillside Deli Grocery & Tobacco Shop and Ali Alsaydi, Defendants.
Plaintiff appeals from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County (Debra Rose Samuels, J.), dated May 12, 2010, which granted defendants-respondents' motion for leave to renew and reargue a prior order (same court and Judge), dated November 20, 2009, denying their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, and, upon reconsideration, granted defendants' motion for summary judgment. Defendants cross-appeal from the aforesaid order of November 20, 2009.
Present: LOWE, III, P.J., SHULMAN, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Order (Debra Rose Samuels, J.), dated May 12, 2010, affirmed, with $10 costs. Appeal from order (same court and Judge), dated November 20, 2009, dismissed, without costs, as academic.
An out-of-possession landlord with a right of reentry may be held liable where it “has constructive notice of a significant structural or design defect in violation of a specific statutory safety provision” (Heim v. Trustees of Columbia Univ. in the City of NY, 81 AD3d 507 [2011], quoting Quinones v. 27 Third City King Rest., 198 A.D.2d 23, 24 [1993] ). Here, defendants established their prima facie entitlement to summary judgment by showing that the leaking air-conditioning unit that allegedly caused plaintiff to slip and fall did not constitute such a defect or violate a specific statutory provision ( see Devlin v. Blaggards III Rest. Corp., 80 AD3d 497 [2011],lv denied16 NY3d 713 [2011];Reyes v. Morton Williams Associated Supermarkets, Inc., 50 AD3d 496, 498 [2008] ). Nor were defendants responsible under the governing lease for ordinary maintenance and repairs of the premises ( see Morrone v. Chelnik Parking Corp., 268 A.D.2d 268, 269–270 [2000];Velazquez v.. Tyler Graphics, 214 A.D.2d 489 [1999] ).
In opposition, plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact sufficient to withstand summary judgment. None of the Administrative Code provisions relied upon by her is applicable to the facts at bar ( see Velazquez v. Tyler Graphics, Ltd., 214 A.D.2d 489, 490 [1995] ).
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.