Jessica Jones, Claimant, v. Extra Space Management Inc, Defendants. (2026)

Jessica Jones ("claimant") rented storage space through a contract that generally relieved Extra Space Storage, Inc. ("defendant" or "Extra Space") of liability for losses including damages from rodents. After allegedly experiencing damages due to a rodent infestation in October 2025, claimant received a $2,000 payment from the insurer of her stored property, which was the maximum amount recoverable under the policy she purchased. Claimant thereafter sought damages allegedly resulting from defendant's negligence and breach of contract in the amount of $10,000. A trial was held on this matter on July 28, 2026. Defendant does not dispute that claimant suffered damages from the rodent infestation, instead claiming that the terms of the contract exempt it from liability. The case is dismissed for other reasons set forth below.

Paragraph 15 of the contract provides that the agreement does not create a bailment. It states: "Operator exercises neither care, custody, nor control over customer's stored property and all property stored within the space or at the facility by customer shall be stored at customer's sole risk." This aligns with the well established principle that a customer's agreement to use a self-storage facility creates a relationship of lessor and lessee, not bailor and bailee. See, Hutton v Pub. Stor. Mgt., Inc., 177 Misc 2d 540, 541 (App Term, 2d Dept 1998) (No bailment where lessee at storage facility procured his own lock for storage space, and the rental agreement provided that lessor would have neither the key nor the combination); Feinberg v W.M. Movers, Inc., 2008 NY Misc. LEXIS 9107, *9 (2008); ("the relationship created through a rental agreement for storage space at a self-storage facility was one of lessor and lessee, and not bailor and bailee"). Paragraph 9 further provides: "Customer shall provide the lock for the rental space... and shall not provide Operator, Operator's agents, authorized representatives and employees ... with a key or any access code to Customer's Space."

Paragraph 16 of the contract provides that the facility "shall not be liable to Customer for any damage or loss to ...any property stored at the Facility, arising from any cause whatsoever, including but not limited to, ... rodents, ... partial or sole negligence or failure to act of Operator..., except for damage or loss resulting from Operator's fraud, gross negligence..." General Obligations Law ("GOL") § 5-321 renders this provision void and unenforceable, as it provides that a lease for real property exempting the lessor from liability for damages to property caused by or resulting from the negligence of the lessor in the operation or maintenance of the premises "shall be deemed to be void as against public policy and wholly unenforceable." Ben Lee Distribs., Inc. v Halstead Harrison Partnership, 72 AD3d 715, 716 (2d Dept. 2010); PR Jericho Stor. LLC v SAKS Plumbing & Heating Corp., 2020 WL 4604801 *7, 2020 NY Slip Op. 32627[U] (Sup Ct, Kings County 2020). Therefore, notwithstanding the contractual limitation, Extra Space may be liable for damages caused by its ordinary negligence, not merely for damages resulting from gross negligence.

Paragraph 21 of the contract between Jones and Extra Space requires that Jones maintain insurance coverage that covers at least 100% of the cash value of the property stored in the unit and that "[t]o the extent Customer does not maintain insurance for the full value of the personal property stored, or fails to maintain insurance at all, Customer bears all risk of loss or damage." Despite declaring on the front page of the agreement that the value of the property stored was $15,000, claimant selected the lowest tier of insurance offered, which capped recovery at $2,000, while the highest tier of insurance offered provided coverage of up to $15,000. Under the terms of the contract, claimant agreed to assume the risk of insurance not covering the full value of her items. However, this court finds to the extent Paragraph 21 purports to relieve defendant of liability for damage to claimant's property caused by defendant's own negligence by shifting the entire risk of loss to claimant through a mandatory insurance requirement, the provision is unenforceable under General Obligations Law § 5-321. On Point Window Treatment, Inc. v. 208 Clifton Place, LLC, 2026 NY App. Div. LEXIS 4366, *2-3 (2d Dept. 2026); Radius, Ltd. v. Newhouse, 213 AD2d 614, 615 (2d Dept. 1995).

In general, "a landowner owes a duty of care to maintain his or her property in a reasonably safe condition." Gronski v County of Monroe, 18 NY3d 374, 379 (2011). This duty is "premised on the landowner's exercise of control over the property, as the person in possession and control of property is best able to identify and prevent any harm to others." Id. This duty is qualified by the principle that "an out-of-possession landlord is not liable for injuries that occur on its premises unless the landlord has retained control over the premises and has a duty imposed by statute or assumed by contract or a course of conduct." Rivera v. 293 Church Realty, LLC, 2026 NY App. Div. LEXIS 4441, *1-2 (2d Dept. 2026); Richer v JQ II Assoc., LLC., 166 AD3d 692, 693 (2d Dept. 2018). Furthermore, for a landlord to be held liable for damages resulting from a defective condition upon the premises, the tenant must establish that the landlord had "actual or constructive notice of the condition for such a period of time that, in the exercise of reasonable care, it should have been corrected." Juarez by Juarez v. Wavecrest Mgmt. Team, 88 NY2d 628, 646 (1996). Under the parties' agreement, defendant neither possessed nor controlled claimant's individual storage unit and had no access to it. Accordingly, any duty owed by defendant was limited to maintaining the portions of the premises over which it retained possession and control, including the common areas, in reasonably safe condition. Defendant can only be found liable if claimant demonstrated that defendant "had actual or constructive notice of, and a reasonable opportunity to remedy, the hazardous condition;" (Rodriguez v Trakansook, 67 AD3d 768, 768-769 (2d Dept. 2009)) i.e, the rodent infestation, in the common areas.

Claimant contended that defendant's conduct in relation to the facility's rodent infestation amounts to negligence. In particular, she claimed that defendant did not warn her prior to storing her property that there was a rodent infestation. However, claimant did not offer any evidence that there was a rodent infestation in the common areas of the facility prior to her possession of the storage space. On the other hand, defendant offered proof at trial that before and during claimant's use of defendant's facility, defendant regularly retained a licensed pest-control service to inspect and treat the common areas of the facility for rodents. Similar evidence of routine pest-control measures has been held sufficient to defeat a claim that a storage facility acted negligently. Aldridge v Good Friend Self Stor., 155 N.Y.S.3d 287, 292 (City Ct 2021). The existence of rodents alone does not establish negligence. See, Chaney v. Extra Space Storage, Inc., 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 6977, *5 (7th Cir. 2023). The issue is whether defendant exercised reasonable care to address any foreseeable infestation. There was no showing that it substantially departed from that duty. Although claimant credibly testified that rodents damaged her belongings inside her storage unit, that evidence, standing alone, does not establish that defendant had actual or constructive notice of a rodent infestation in the common areas before the damage occurred or that defendant had a reasonable opportunity to remedy that condition. In particular, claimant did not produce evidence that structural openings were left unrepaired. Accordingly, defendant may not be found liable for negligence.

The Court credits defendant's evidence that it regularly retained a licensed pest-control company to inspect and treat the common areas of the facility and finds no evidence that defendant ignored complaints of a known rodent infestation or otherwise failed to respond reasonably to any rodent condition. While the Court accepts claimant's testimony that rodents damaged her stored property, the occurrence of such damage does not, without more, establish that defendant failed to exercise reasonable care in maintaining those portions of the premises under its control. Negligence may not be inferred solely from the occurrence of the damage itself. See, Deschamps v Timberwolf Tree & Tile Serv., 172 AD3d 1308, 1309 (2d Dept. 2019) ("Evidence of negligence is not enough by itself to establish liability. It must also be proved that the negligence was [a proximate] cause of the event which produced the harm"); Seaman v. State of New York, 2006 NY Slip Op 52624(U), 21 Misc 3d 1111(A) (Ct. Claims 2006) ("negligence cannot be inferred solely from the occurrence of an incident; rather, negligence must be proven"). The Civil Court Act ("CCA") § 1804 provides that the court must conduct hearings upon small claims in such manner as to do substantial justice between the parties according to the rules and principles of substantive law. O'Hara v. Bates, 2025 NY Slip Op. 51146(U), 2025 NY Misc. LEXIS 6289 *1-2 (App Term, 2d Dept 2025). In accordance with this duty, the court grants judgment in favor of defendant, dismissing the claim. This constitutes the decision and order of the court.

Dated: August 2, 2026

Hon. Tehilah H. Berman

Judge of the Civil Court, Kings County

Tehilah H. Berman, J.