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.
Caridad CEPEDA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. 3604-3610 REALTY CORP., et al., Defendants-Respondents.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Walter Tolub, J.), entered April 1, 2002, which, inter alia, granted the motion of defendant 3604-3610 Realty Corp. for summary judgment dismissing the complaint against it, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
The motion court properly found that no triable issue of fact existed as to the liability of defendant 3604-3610 Realty Corp., the owner of the subject premises, for plaintiff's slip and fall on the metal stairs leading to the commercial premises leased by defendant Marte. There is no evidence that 3604-3610 Realty Corp., an out-of-possession landlord, consented to be responsible for maintaining the safety of the metal stairs by performing snow and ice removal. The lease pursuant to which the premises were let to defendant Marte did not obligate the landlord to maintain the premises, except structurally, and the deposition testimony indicated that the building superintendent did not clear snow and ice from the metal stairs upon which plaintiff's accident is alleged to have occurred (see Gerber v. City of New York, 280 A.D.2d 289, 290, 719 N.Y.S.2d 650). Nor may liability be imposed upon defendant landlord upon the theory that the stairs in question were affected by a Code violation and consequently defective and hazardous, since the Code section relied upon by plaintiff (Administrative Code of the City of N.Y. § 27-376) is not applicable to the kind of stairs here at issue (see Gaston v. New York City Hous. Auth., 258 A.D.2d 220, 223-224, 695 N.Y.S.2d 83).
We have considered plaintiff's remaining arguments and find them unavailing.
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Decided: October 08, 2002
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First 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)