McDonnell v. Blockbuster Video, Inc.

• Decision Date: 02 March 2022
• Docket Number: 2019–10620,Index No. 700255/10
• Citation: 203 A.D.3d 713,160 N.Y.S.3d 648 (Mem)
• Parties: Michael MCDONNELL, appellant, v. BLOCKBUSTER VIDEO, INC., defendant, Elmnic, LLC, et al., respondents.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

203 A.D.3d 713

160 N.Y.S.3d 648 (Mem)

Michael MCDONNELL, appellant,

v. BLOCKBUSTER VIDEO, INC., defendant,Elmnic, LLC, et al., respondents.

2019–10620

Index No. 700255/10

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

Argued—January 4, 2022

March 2, 2022

Scott Baron & Associates, P.C., Howard Beach, NY, for appellant.

Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker LLP, White Plains, NY (Roland T. Koke of counsel), for respondents.

COLLEEN D. DUFFY, J.P., CHERYL E. CHAMBERS, SHERI S. ROMAN, LINDA CHRISTOPHER, JJ.

DECISION & ORDER

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Rudolph E. Greco, Jr., J.), entered August 28, 2019. The order, insofar as appealed from, granted that branch of the motion of the defendants Elmnic, LLC, and Daniel Zenkel which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as against the defendant Elmnic, LLC, and denied the plaintiff's cross motion pursuant to CPLR 3126 for discovery sanctions.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The plaintiff commenced this action to recover damages for personal injuries he allegedly sustained in 2010 when he tripped and fell upon stepping into a hole in a parking lot. The subject property was owned by the defendant Elmnic, LLC (hereinafter Elmnic), and leased by the defendant Blockbuster Video, Inc. (hereinafter Blockbuster). The defendant Daniel Zenkel was, among other things, the manager of Elmnic, in which he had an ownership interest. Elmnic and Zenkel (hereinafter together the defendants) moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them, inter alia, on the basis that Elmnic was an out-of-possession landlord with no duty to maintain or repair the parking lot. The plaintiff cross-moved pursuant to CPLR 3126 for discovery sanctions. In an order entered August 28, 2019, the Supreme Court granted the defendants’ motion and denied the plaintiff's cross motion. The plaintiff appeals from so much of the order as granted that branch of the defendants’ motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as against Elmnic and denied his cross motion.

An "out-of-possession landlord [is] not liable for injuries caused by dangerous conditions on leased premises in the absence of a statute imposing liability, a contractual provision placing the duty to repair on the landlord, or a course of conduct by the landlord giving rise to a duty" ( Muller v. City of New York, 185 A.D.3d 834, 835, 125 N.Y.S.3d 576 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see King v. Marwest, LLC, 192 A.D.3d 874, 876, 143 N.Y.S.3d 673 ; Ferraro v. 270 Skip Lane, LLC, 177 A.D.3d 651, 652, 109 N.Y.S.3d 891 ). Here, the complaint sounds in common-law negligence and the pleadings do not allege the violation of a statute (see Ferraro v. 270 Skip Lane, LLC, 177 A.D.3d at 652, 109 N.Y.S.3d 891 ; Fox v. Patriot Saloon, 166 A.D.3d 950, 951, 88 N.Y.S.3d 483 ).

The defendants demonstrated, prima facie, through, inter alia, the lease and the deposition testimony of Zenkel, that Elmnic did not assume a duty by contract or course of conduct to maintain the parking lot (see Barger v. Only Props., 193 A.D.3d 1027, 1028, 147 N.Y.S.3d 667 ; Ferraro v. 270 Skip Lane, LLC, 177 A.D.3d at 652, 109 N.Y.S.3d 891 ). Specifically, the lease submitted by the defendants provided that Blockbuster, the tenant, not Elmnic, was responsible for the maintenance of the parking lot and that the tenant had the exclusive right to park in spaces in the lot.

Contrary to the plaintiff's contention, Elmnic's responsibility under the lease to make certain repairs to the premises did not defeat Elmnic's claim that it was an out-of-possession landlord, as it is possible for an out-of-possession landlord to have a limited duty to maintain or repair a leased property in some specific respect while having no responsibility to maintain or repair the leased property...