Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Andrea M. FULLER, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Frank D. MARCELLO, Defendant, Pino Restaurant, Inc., Doing Business as Billy Bob's, Defendant-Appellant, David W. Hoffman, and David W. Hoffman and Amy E. Hoffman, Trustees of the 1997 Hoffman Family Living Trust, Defendants-Respondents.
Plaintiffs commenced this action seeking damages for injuries sustained by Andrea M. Fuller (plaintiff) when defendant Frank D. Marcello, mistakenly believing that his car was in reverse, drove his car forward into the pedestrian area of a restaurant, striking a support pole and causing the pole to fall on plaintiff. Supreme Court erred in granting that part of the motion of defendants David W. Hoffman and David W. Hoffman and Amy E. Hoffman, trustees of the 1997 Hoffman Family Living Trust (collectively, Hoffman defendants), for summary judgment on their cross claim for indemnification against defendant Pino Restaurant, Inc., doing business as Billy Bob's (Pino). The Hoffman defendants contended in support of their motion that, as out-of-possession landlords, they have no liability for the condition of the property that was leased to and operated by Pino. Although an out-of-possession landlord who relinquishes control of the premises generally is not liable for injuries caused by an unsafe condition existing on the premises, there is an exception to that general rule “ ‘where the lessor rents premises for a public use when he knows, or should have known, that they are in a dangerous condition’ at the time of the lease” (Brady v. Cocozzo, 174 A.D.2d 814, 814, 570 N.Y.S.2d 748; see Campbell v. Elsie S. Holding Co., 251 N.Y. 446, 448-449, 167 N.E. 582). Here, the evidence submitted in support of the Hoffman defendants' motion establishes that the premises were generally in the same condition at the time of the accident as when David Hoffman owned and operated the premises. Furthermore, David Hoffman testified at his deposition that he was aware that another vehicle previously had crashed into the restaurant. We thus conclude that the Hoffman defendants failed to meet their initial burden of establishing that they did not know, or had no reason to know, of the alleged dangerous condition of the property at the time of the lease (see generally Alvarez v. Prospect Hosp., 68 N.Y.2d 320, 324, 508 N.Y.S.2d 923, 501 N.E.2d 572).
It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously reversed on the law without costs and the motion is denied in its entirety.
MEMORANDUM:
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: March 16, 2007
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)