Sussman v. Plainview-Old Bethpage School Dist., PLAINVIEW-OLD

• Decision Date: 21 November 1994
• Docket Number: PLAINVIEW-OLD
• Citation: 209 A.D.2d 609,619 N.Y.S.2d 120
• Parties: , 96 Ed. Law Rep. 203 Helen SUSSMAN, et al., Appellants, v.BETHPAGE SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al., Defendants-Respondents.BETHPAGE SCHOOL DISTRICT, Third-Party Plaintiff-Respondent, v. BOARD OF COOPERATIVE EDUCATIONAL SERVICES OF NASSAU COUNTY, etc., Third-Party Defendant-Respondent.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 120

619 N.Y.S.2d 120

209 A.D.2d 609, 96 Ed. Law Rep. 203

Helen SUSSMAN, et al., Appellants, v. PLAINVIEW-OLD BETHPAGE SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al.,

Defendants-Respondents.

PLAINVIEW-OLD BETHPAGE SCHOOL DISTRICT, Third-Party Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

BOARD OF COOPERATIVE EDUCATIONAL SERVICES OF NASSAU COUNTY,

etc., Third-Party Defendant-Respondent.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

Nov. 21, 1994.

Carlucci & Legum, Mineola (Robert J. Carlucci, of counsel), for appellants.

Steven L. Sidney, Woodbury (Ann K. Kandel, of counsel), for defendants-respondents.

Ahmuty, Demers & McManus, Albertson (Frank J. Pecorelli, Jr., of counsel), for third-party defendant-respondent.

Before MANGANO, P.J., and THOMPSON, COPERTINO and HART, JJ.

MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.

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, Nassau County (Murphy, J.), dated June 28, 1993, as granted the motion of the defendant Plainview-Old Bethpage School District for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs payable to the defendant-respondent.

The Supreme Court properly concluded, upon review of the relevant lease provisions, that the defendant lessor Plainview-Old Bethpage School District had no duty to maintain the interior portion of the demised premises where the injured plaintiff allegedly fell on a slippery floor tile (see, Pirillo v. Long Is. Rail Road, 208 A.D.2d 818, 617 N.Y.S.2d 829; Aprea v. Carol Mgt. Corp., 190 A.D.2d 838, 594 N.Y.S.2d 53; Garland v. Titan W. Assocs., 147 A.D.2d 304, 310, 543 N.Y.S.2d 56; 1 Rasch, New York Landlord and Tenant--Summary Proceedings § 15:7, at 677 [3d ed]; see also, Pizzi v. Bradlees Div. of Stop & Shop, 172 A.D.2d 504, 567 N.Y.S.2d 852; cf., Cacciolo v. Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J., 186 A.D.2d 528, 530, 588 N.Y.S.2d 350).