| Stein v Harriet Mgt., LLC |
| 2008 NY Slip Op 04862 [51 AD3d 1007] |
| May 27, 2008 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Deborah Stein, Appellant, v Harriet Management, LLC, etal., Respondents. |
—[*1] Harrington, Ocko & Monk, LLP, White Plains, N.Y. (I. Paul Howansky of counsel), forrespondent Harriet Management, LLC.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by herbrief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Satterfield, J.), datedJune 20, 2006, as, upon renewal, granted that branch of the prior motion of the defendant HarrietManagement, LLC, which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar asasserted against it, which had been denied in an order of the same court dated September 12,2005.
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
The plaintiff allegedly fell on debris and was injured while descending the stairs in a bar andrestaurant known as Jake's Dilemma, which is located on property owned by the defendantHarriet Management, LLC (hereinafter Harriet). The plaintiff subsequently commenced thisaction against Harriet and Harriet Management, doing business as Jake's Dilemma, alleging, interalia, that the stairs were negligently maintained.
Upon renewal, the Supreme Court, among other things, granted that branch of Harriet'smotion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it,finding that Harriet was an out-of-possession landlord not liable for the plaintiff's injuries. Weaffirm.
An out-of-possession landlord is generally not responsible for injuries that occur on [*2]the premises unless that party has retained control over the premisesor is contractually obligated to maintain or repair the alleged hazard (see Couluris v HarborBoat Realty, Inc., 31 AD3d 686 [2006]; Knipfing v V&J, Inc., 8 AD3d 628, 628-629[2004]; Eckers v Suede, 294 AD2d 533 [2002]). Harriet established its prima facieentitlement to summary judgment by submitting the entire lease, with riders, which demonstratedthat it relinquished control of the leased premises and was not obligated under the terms of thelease to maintain or repair the staircase (see Couluris v Harbor Boat Realty, Inc., 31AD3d 686 [2006]). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whetherthe allegedly defective condition constituted a specific statutory violation (see O'Connell vL.B. Realty Co., 50 AD3d 752 [2008]; Ahmad v City of New York, 298 AD2d 473,474 [2002]; Kilimnik v Mirage Rest., 223 AD2d 530 [1996]).
The plaintiff's remaining contentions are without merit. Ritter, J.P., Miller, Dillon andAngiolillo, JJ., concur.