Carey v. Massaro, 270 A.D.2d 222 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000). · Go Syfert
Search
Carey v. Massaro, 270 A.D.2d 222 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 3× by 3 distinct cases, last quoted 2002 · …it is well settled that an out-of-possession owner or lessor is not liable for injuries that occur on the premises unless that entity retained control of the premises or is contractually obligated to repair the unsafe condition ⚠ not in text
13 citation events (11 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: Adolf v. Erie County Indus. Dev. Agency (nyappdiv, 2019-07-31)
Top citers, strongest first. 3 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Adolf v. Erie County Indus. Dev. Agency
N.Y. App. Div. · 2019 · confidence medium
Here, the provisions of the lease between defendant and its tenant were sufficient to establish defendant's prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law because that lease established that defendant was an out-of-possession landlord with no duty to remove snow or ice ( see Lindquist v C & C Landscape Contrs., Inc ., 38 AD3d 616, 617 [2d Dept 2007]; Scott v Bergstol , 11 AD3d 525, 526 [2d Dept 2004]), and defendant's contractual right to re-enter the premises "did not create a situation where [defendant] retained control over the parking lot" ( Carvano v Morgan , 270 AD2d 222, 223 [2d…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Yadegar v. International Food Market
N.Y. App. Div. · 2007 · confidence medium
Stein. “[A]n out-of-possession owner or lessor is not liable for injuries that occur on the premises unless that entity retained control of the premises or is contractually obligated to repair the unsafe condition” (Carvano v Morgan, 270 AD2d 222, 223 [2000]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Holling v. Dawn M., Inc.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2005 · confidence medium
Benjamin stated that plaintiffs lot included the unpaved area and, thus, defendant was an out-of-possession landlord with no obligation to clear snow or ice from that area (see Carvano v Morgan, 270 AD2d 222, 223 [2000]; Hinds v Consolidated Rail Corp., 263 AD2d 590, 591 [1999]; Davison v Wiggand, 259 AD2d 799, 800-801 [1999], lv denied 94 NY2d 751 [1999]).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Kevin Carey
v.
Viola Massaro, and Town of Hempstead, (And Other Actions.)
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Mar 6, 2000.
270 A.D.2d 222
2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2522
Published

—In an action to recover damages for personal injures, etc., the defendant Town of Hempstead appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (DiNoto, J.), dated March 4, 1999, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against it.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

It is undisputed that the Town of Hempstead did not have prior written notice of the hazardous condition alleged by the plaintiffs to have caused the instant collision (see, Town of Hempstead Code § 6-1). Nevertheless, the Supreme Court properly denied the Town’s motion for summary judgment as the plaintiffs successfully demonstrated the existence of an issue of fact as to whether the Town created the condition (see, Doherty v Town of Orangetown, 221 AD2d 310; Humes v Town of Hempstead, 166 AD2d 503). Ritter, J. P., Sullivan, S. Miller, Luciano and H. Miller, JJ., concur.