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.
Efim KRENTSEL, et al., Appellants, v. SALON ZORINA, INC., Defendant, Sheldon R. Carroll, et al., Respondents.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Dabiri, J.), dated January 10, 2001, as granted the cross motion of the defendants Sheldon R. Carroll and Sheila Carroll for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
It is well settled that an out-of-possession owner is not liable for injuries sustained at its premises unless it retains control over the premises or is contractually obligated to repair unsafe conditions (see, Angwin v. SRF Partnership, L.P., 285 A.D.2d 570, 571, 728 N.Y.S.2d 98; Wilson v. Laung Hang Realty Corp., 281 A.D.2d 414, 721 N.Y.S.2d 290; Rivera v. Wood, 276 A.D.2d 682, 714 N.Y.S.2d 732; Berado v. City of Mount Vernon, 262 A.D.2d 513, 514, 694 N.Y.S.2d 403; Carvano v. Morgan, 270 A.D.2d 222, 703 N.Y.S.2d 534). The defendants Sheldon R. Carroll and Sheila Carroll (hereinafter the defendants), the owners of the premises where the injured plaintiff allegedly fell, made a prima facie showing of their entitlement to summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them. The plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact that the defendants either retained control of the premises or were contractually obligated to keep the property in good repair. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendants' cross motion.
The plaintiffs' remaining contentions are without merit.
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 18, 2002
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second 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)