Ana Jovanovic and Sasa Jovanovic, Respondents, v. Falsons Realty Corp., Appellant. (2026)

ORDERED that the order, insofar as appealed from, is reversed, without costs, and defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is granted.

Plaintiffs commenced this action to recover damages for injuries that plaintiff Ana Jovanovic allegedly sustained in the course of her employment at a retail store and for loss of services that her husband, plaintiff Sasa Jovanovic, sustained as a result. Defendant is the owner of the premises and Ana Jovanovic's employer is the sublessee. Plaintiffs allege that, while Ana Jovanovic was retrieving inventory from the basement of the premises, boxes from an adjacent shelf fell on her. Plaintiffs further allege that the accident was caused by vibrations emanating from a nearby conveyor belt and uneven flooring underneath the shelves. Defendant moved for summary judgment on the grounds that it is an out-of-possession landlord with no duty to maintain or repair either the conveyor belt or the basement floor, as its repair obligations were limited to keeping the premises "leak free and water tight," and that plaintiffs' theory of the cause of the accident is speculative. By order dated February 24, 2025, insofar as is relevant here, the Civil Court (Sandra Perez, J.) denied defendant's motion.

"In general, the owner of real property owes a duty to maintain that property in a reasonably safe condition" (Amparo v Christopher One Corp., 225 AD3d 652, 653 [2024]). "However, an out-of-possession landlord is not liable for injuries caused by a dangerous condition on leased premises in the absence of a duty imposed by statute or assumed by contract or a course of conduct" (id. at 653-654 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Patterson v H.E.H., LLC, 217 AD3d 879, 880 [2023]). Here, defendant established, prima facie, that it is an out-of-possession landlord with no duty to repair the conveyor belt or the basement floor under the circumstances presented. Defendant established that its contractual duties were limited to keeping the premises "leak free and water tight." Furthermore, plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that the purportedly defective basement floor violated a "specific statutory safety provision" that would impose liability on defendant under a theory of constructive notice (Jackson v United States Tennis Assn., 294 AD2d 470, 471 [2002] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Lane v Fisher Park Lane Co., 276 AD2d 136, 141 [2000]). Finally, during her deposition, when asked about the cause of the accident, Ms. Jovanovic answered, "I don't know" several times. Since plaintiffs do not know the cause of the accident, "the trier of fact would be required to base a finding of proximate cause upon nothing more than speculation" (Hartman v Mountain Val. Brew Pub, 301 AD2d 570, 570 [2003]).

Accordingly, the order, insofar as appealed from, is reversed, and defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is granted.

BUGGS, J.P., TOUSSAINT and LIN, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Jennifer Chan

Chief Clerk

Decision Date: June 17, 2026