Yvette Rivera, appellant, v. 293 LLC (2026)

Argued—December 9, 2025

DECISION & ORDER

G/

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Anne J. Swern, J.), dated October 24, 2024.  The order granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff commenced this action to recover damages for personal injuries she allegedly sustained when a restroom light fixture fell from the ceiling and struck her.  The defendant moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that it was an out-of-possession landlord.  In an order dated October 24, 2024, the Supreme Court granted the defendant's motion.  The plaintiff appeals.

“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” (Richer v. JQ II Assoc., LLC, 166 AD3d 692, 693 [internal quotation marks omitted];  see Gronski v. County of Monroe, 18 NY3d 374, 379).

Here, the defendant established, prima facie, that it was an out-of-possession landlord with no duty to maintain the subject light fixture (see Alexandre v. Shih T. Wang, 241 AD3d 1223, 1225;  Mejia v 2959 Fulton St. Realty, Inc., 240 AD3d 881, 884).  A lease agreement between the defendant and the plaintiff's employer unambiguously placed responsibility for maintaining the restroom where the accident occurred on the plaintiff's employer.  Contrary to the plaintiff's contention, the defendant's obligation to maintain the exterior and common areas of the multi-unit commercial building did not demonstrate that the defendant maintained a right to reenter the demised premises and repair the light fixture (see Washington v. Jay St. Dev. Corp., 215 AD3d 717, 719).

In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact.  The plaintiff did not provide any evidence to suggest that the defendant assumed a duty to maintain the restroom through a course of conduct or that the light fixture fell due to a significant structural or design defect in violation of a specific statutory provision (see Mejia v 2959 Fulton St. Realty, Inc., 240 AD3d at 883–884).  An affirmation of the plaintiff's expert that he expected to testify, inter alia, regarding the likelihood that the plaintiff's accident was caused by moisture from a skylight was speculative, conclusory, and lacking in foundation (see Romano v. Stanley, 90 N.Y.2d 444, 451;  Jackson v. Schindler El. Corp., 236 AD3d 769, 770;  Kavenaght v. 498 Seventh, LLC, 231 AD3d 720, 722).

Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

The plaintiff's remaining contention is without merit.

CONNOLLY, J.P., CHRISTOPHER, WARHIT and GOLDBERG VELAZQUEZ, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Darrell M. Joseph

Clerk of the Court