| Robinson v M. Parisi & Son Constr. Co., Inc. |
| 2008 NY Slip Op 04338 [51 AD3d 653] |
| May 6, 2008 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| James Robinson, Appellant, v M. Parisi & SonConstruction Co., Inc., Respondent. |
—[*1] John C. Lane, New York, N.Y. (Peter C. Bobchin of counsel), for respondent.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order ofthe Supreme Court, Queens County (Kelly, J.), dated August 25, 2006, which, inter alia, grantedthe defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
While in the course of his employment for Emery Air Freight Corporation (hereinafterEmery), the plaintiff allegedly sustained injuries when he slipped and fell on water located on thefloor of a warehouse owned by the defendant and leased by Emery. The plaintiff claimed that hehad seen water on the floor in the area of his accident on prior occasions and that the source ofthat water was from the roof of the warehouse, which leaked when it rained or snowed. The leaseagreement provided that Emery was responsible for the maintenance and repair of the premises,with the exception of structural repairs, including those to the roof, for which the defendant wasresponsible. It is unrefuted, however, that prior to the plaintiff's accident Emery had agreed toundertake the repairs to the roof at its own cost and expense.
"Generally, an out-of-possession owner or lessor is not liable for injuries that occur on itspremises unless it has retained control over the premises or is contractually obligated to repairunsafe conditions" (Lindquist v C & CLandscape Contrs., Inc., 38 AD3d 616, 616-617 [2007] [internal quotation marksomitted]). Here, the defendant established its prima facie entitlement to summary judgment bydemonstrating that it had [*2]relinquished control of the premisesand was not contractually bound to maintain or repair the leased premises (id. at 617; Bouima v Dacomi, Inc., 36 AD3d739, 740 [2007]).
In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. While the defendant retaineda right to reenter the premises, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether thedefendant violated any specific statutory provision (see O'Connell v L.B. Realty Co., 50 AD3d 752 [2008]). In thisregard, the provisions of Administrative Code of the City of New York §§ 27-127and 27-128, which the plaintiff contends were violated by the defendant, are nonspecific andreflect only a general duty to maintain the premises in a safe condition (id.; see Ahmad v Cityof New York, 298 AD2d 473, 474 [2002]; Kilimnik v Mirage Rest., 223 AD2d 530[1996]). Thus, summary judgment dismissing the complaint was properly granted to thedefendant.
The plaintiff's remaining contention is without merit. Rivera, J.P., Ritter, Dillon and Carni,JJ., concur.