Quarless v Dengler
2008 NY Slip Op 01127 [48 AD3d 438]
February 5, 2008
Appellate Division, Second Department
As corrected through Wednesday, April 16, 2008


Marietta Quarless, Respondent,
v
Allegra French Dengler,Respondent, and Jessie J. Hall, Doing Business as House of Styles,Appellant.

[*1]Steven G. Fauth, New York, N.Y. (John H. Shin of counsel), for appellant.

Rosenberg & Gluck, LLP, Holtsville, N.Y. (Michael V. Buffa of counsel), forplaintiff-respondent.

Russo, Keane & Toner, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Christopher D. Mehno of counsel), fordefendant-respondent.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant Jessie J. Hall, doingbusiness as House of Styles, appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (F.Rivera, J.), dated November 17, 2006, which denied his motion for summary judgmentdismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against him.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the motion for summaryjudgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against the appellantis granted.

The plaintiff allegedly was injured while descending exterior steps located outside a buildingowned by the defendant Allegra French Dengler. The appellant leased the ground floor of thebuilding.

Contrary to the Supreme Court's determination, the appellant established his entitlement tojudgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that he did not own, occupy, control, or makespecial use of the area where the plaintiff fell (see Indence v 225 Union Ave. Corp., 38 AD3d 494 [2007]). In[*2]opposition, the respondents failed to raise a triable issue offact. The respondents produced no evidence that the appellant made special use of the exteriorsteps or had a contractual obligation to repair the alleged structural defect (see Golds v DelAguila, 259 AD2d 942 [1999]). Thus, the appellant may not be held liable for failing tocorrect the alleged dangerous condition (see Morrison v Gerlitzky, 282 AD2d 725[2001]), and was entitled to summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claimsinsofar as asserted against him. Spolzino, J.P., Skelos, Florio and Angiolillo, JJ., concur.


NYPTI Decisions © 2026 is a project of New York Prosecutors Training Institute (NYPTI) made possible by leveraging the work we've done providing online research and tools to prosecutors.

NYPTI would like to thank New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services, New York State Senate's Open Legislation Project, New York State Unified Court System, New York State Law Reporting Bureau and Free Law Project for their invaluable assistance making this project possible.

Install the free RECAP extensions to help contribute to this archive. See https://free.law/recap/ for more information.