MAINTAINED AN OFFICE IN BUILDING WHERE ACCIDENT OCCURRED
After NG slipped and fell on some torn rugs which were situated at the entrance of an office building where she worked, she sued the property owner and building manager seeking compensation for her injuries. When they later sought pretrial relief in their favor – via a motion for summary judgment – the Kings County Supreme Court ended up granting that request, based on the defendants’ contention that they were “out-of-possession” landlords (who had transferred control to a tenant, who net leased the entire building) and thus weren’t liable for what had transpired.
But on appeal, the Appellate Division, Second Department, had a different take on the matter.
While the building was net leased to a tenant who was responsible for the maintenance of the entrance, the defendants still maintained an office at the premises. And, each work day, one of the defendants’ employees reportedly used the same entrance that NG used, and would report any defects he observed to the building’s security, who would inform the tenant to correct those conditions.
Given those facts, the AD2 thought there were “triable issues of fact,” as to whether the defendants were really “out-of-possession landlords,” as they had claimed. And since they had not proffered a “prima facie entitlement” to relief in their favor, the AD2 reversed the underlying determination, and denied their motion.
Think they’re tripping over themselves there?
# # #
DECISION