Chadis v. Grand Union Co.
| Decision Date | 05 February 1990 |
| Citation | 550 N.Y.S.2d 908,158 A.D.2d 443 |
| Parties | Morris CHADIS, et al., Plaintiffs-Respondents, v. The GRAND UNION COMPANY, Appellant, Robert Nelson, et al., Defendants-Respondents. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Boeggeman, George, Jannace & Hodges, P.C., White Plains (John J. Walsh, of counsel), for appellant.
David E. Worby, P.C., White Plains (Peter Targredi, of counsel), for plaintiffs-respondents.
Kornfeld, Rew, Newman & Ellsworth, Suffern (Susan R. Perone, of counsel), for defendants-respondents Robert Nelson & Leo Zucker, a partnership trading as Bridon Realty Co.
Before MOLLEN, P.J., and BRACKEN, BROWN and ROSENBLATT, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant Grand Union Company appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Bergerman, J.), dated March 13, 1989, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as it is asserted against it and the cross claim against it.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs.
The defendant Grand Union Company (hereinafter Grand Union) leases a supermarket from the codefendants Robert Nelson and Leo Zucker, a partnership trading as Bridon Realty Company. The plaintiff Morris Chadis was injured, allegedly as the result of a defective condition which existed on the surface of a parking lot located near the supermarket. Essentially conceding that the location of the accident was a part of the demised premises, Grand Union made a motion for summary judgment on the basis that the codefendants had promised, and had in fact undertaken to be primarily responsible for the inspection and repair of the parking lot. The Supreme Court denied the motion, and we affirm.
In Putnam v. Stout, 46 A.D.2d 812, 361 N.Y.S.2d 205, affd. 38 N.Y.2d 607, 381 N.Y.S.2d 848, 345 N.E.2d 319, this court affirmed a judgment based upon a jury verdict which was in favor of an injured plaintiff and which was against both a landlord and a tenant. The Court of Appeals upheld this finding of liability, as well as its apportionment of liability between the two defendants. In so doing, both the Court of Appeals and the Appellate Division necessarily recognized that the tenant had a common-law duty to remove dangerous defects from premises occupied by it, even though the landlord may have made an explicit contractual promise in the lease to keep the subject premises in good repair.
The holding in Putnam v. Stout (supra) is consistent with the general rule that a tenant may be held liable for negligently allowing the demised premises to become dangerous, and that such potential for liability exists independently of the terms of the lease and irrespective of whether the tenant actually covenanted to keep the property in good repair (see generally, 2B Warren's New York Negligence, Landlord and Tenant § 18.01, at 1041-1043; Prosser and Keeton, Torts § 63, at 434-435 [5th ed]. Grand Union has essentially conceded that the area where the plaintiff's accident occurred is a part of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Alnashmi v. Certified Analytical Group Inc.
...Injured on the Premises, 62 Harv L. Rev. 669 [1949]; 34 N.Y. Jur, Landlord and Tenant § 455, at 325–326; cf. Chadis v. Grand Union Co., 158 A.D.2d 443, 444, 550 N.Y.S.2d 908). By transferring possession and control of the property to a tenant, the landowner also transferred the responsibili......
-
Milewski v. Wash. Mut. Inc.
...Co., 224 A.D.2d 299, 300, 638 N.Y.S.2d 448; McNelis v. Doubleday Sports, 191 A.D.2d 619, 620, 595 N.Y.S.2d 118; Chadis v. Grand Union Co., 158 A.D.2d 443, 444, 550 N.Y.S.2d 908; cf. Hoberman v. Kids R Us, 187 A.D.2d 187, 593 N.Y.S.2d 39). This duty does not depend on the classification of t......
-
Zuckerman v. State
...Farrar v. Teicholz, 173 A.D.2d 674, 570 N.Y.S.2d 329; Elston v. FCO Auto Racing, 161 A.D.2d 561, 555 N.Y.S.2d 394; Chadis v. Grand Union Co., 158 A.D.2d 443, 550 N.Y.S.2d 908; McGill v. Caldors, Inc., 135 A.D.2d 1041, 522 N.Y.S.2d 976). This duty coexists with the duty the defendant State u......
-
Gatto v. Coinmach Corp.
...Inc. , 85 A.D.3d 1144, 926 N.Y.S.2d 153 ; Cohen v. Central Parking Sys. , 303 A.D.2d 353, 354, 756 N.Y.S.2d 266 ; Chadis v. Grand Union Co. , 158 A.D.2d 443, 550 N.Y.S.2d 908 ). Although we agree with our dissenting colleague that the height of the machine was not an actionable defect (see ......