Summary
This Appellate Division decision addresses a personal injury action arising from a plaintiff's fall on a concrete ramp at a commercial storefront. The court reviews a lower court order granting summary judgment to one defendant while denying it to another, focusing on whether the landlord or tenant held contractual responsibility for maintaining the premises. Applying lease terms and evidentiary standards, the court dismisses the landlord's appeal as to the portion granting summary judgment because the appellant was not aggrieved, and affirms the remainder of the order.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether RRR & N Corp. is aggrieved by the portion of the order granting summary judgment dismissing the complaint against Thriftcare Pharmacy
- Whether the lease placed the duty to maintain and repair the ramp on the landlord rather than the tenant
- Whether summary judgment was proper in granting Thriftcare's motion and denying RRR's cross‑motion
Holdings
- RRR & N Corp. is not aggrieved by that portion of the order and the appeal as to it is dismissed.
- The lease expressly placed the duty to maintain public portions of the building, including the ramp, on the landlord; therefore Thriftcare had no contractual obligation to repair the ramp.
- The summary‑judgment rulings were proper; Thriftcare's motion was granted because it had no duty, and RRR's cross‑motion was denied because RRR failed to establish an out‑of‑possession landlord or any contractual duty.
Key quotations
“[A] written agreement that is complete, clear and unambiguous on its face must be enforced according to the plain meaning of its terms” (at 2)
Factual background
Angela Bonas slipped and fell on a concrete ramp while exiting a storefront owned by RRR & N Corp. The storefront was leased to Thriftcare Pharmacy, which occupied the premises at the time of the accident.
Procedural history
The Supreme Court, Kings County granted Thriftcare's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross‑claims against it, and denied RRR's cross‑motion. RRR appealed that order.