Conneely v. Herzog, 33 A.D.3d 1065 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006). · Go Syfert
Conneely v. Herzog, 33 A.D.3d 1065 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
9 citation events (9 in the last 25 years) across 3 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: John Ex Rel. Kendall v. Cassidy (nyappdiv, 2017-06-09)
Top citers, strongest first. 5 distinct citers.
cited Cited as authority (rule) John Ex Rel. Kendall v. Cassidy
N.Y. App. Div. · 2017 · confidence medium
Conneely v Herzog, 33 AD3d 1065, 1066 [2006]; see generally Gronski, 18 NY3d at 380-382 ).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Kenneths Fine Repairs, LLC v. State
N.Y. App. Div. · 2015 · confidence medium
In general, a landowner’s liability for the condition of real estate expires when he or she transfers possession and control of that real estate (Conneely v Herzog, 33 AD3d 1065, 1066 [2006]; Edwards v Van Skiver, 256 AD2d 957, 958 [1998]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Kenneths Fine Repairs, LLC v. State
N.Y. App. Div. · 2015 · confidence medium
In general, a landowner’s liability for the condition of real estate expires when he or she transfers possession and control of that real estate (Conneely v Herzog, 33 AD3d 1065, 1066 [2006]; Edwards v Van Skiver, 256 AD2d 957, 958 [1998]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Vanderwerken v. Bellinger
N.Y. App. Div. · 2010 · confidence medium
While the deed to the property remained in Bellinger’s name, he in effect held “legal title in trust . . . and maintain[ed] an equitable lien” on the property as security for the contract’s purchase price (Edwards v Van Skiver, 256 AD2d 957, 958 [1998]; see Elterman v Hyman, 192 NY 113, 119 [1908]; Conneely v Herzog, 33 AD3d 1065, 1065-1066 [2006]; Romel v Reale, 155 AD2d 747, 747-748 [1989]; see also Bean v Walker, 95 AD2d 70, 72 [1983]).
cited Cited "see" Lucero v. Ulvestad
Colo. Ct. App. · 2015 · signal: accord · confidence high
App. Div. 1998) (vendor did not retain sufficient possession and control of property to be subject to liability for tenant’s injuries); accord Conneely v. Herzog , 822 N.Y.S.2d 662, 663 (N.Y.
Joseph Conneely
v.
Charles K. Herzog
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Oct 19, 2006.
33 A.D.3d 1065
Lahtinen.
Cited by 7 opinions  |  Published
Lahtinen, J.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court (Dowd, J.), entered October 13, 2005 in Otsego County, which granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Defendant executed a land contract in July 1999 selling a parcel he owned in the Town of Middleburgh, Schoharie County, and, in February 2000, he agreed to an assignment of that land contract to George Coons and Michelle Bailey. In January 2002, plaintiff allegedly sustained injuries when he was walking on a street adjacent to the property and tripped over a discarded lawnmower that protruded from the property partially into the street. Plaintiff commenced this action against defendant, who, after disclosure, successfully moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Plaintiff appeals.

We affirm. “Following the execution of a contract for the installment sale of real property the vendee/purchaser acquires equitable title to the property” (Edwards v Van Skiver, 256 AD2d 957, 958 [1998] [citations omitted]; see Bean v Walker, 95[*1066] AD2d 70, 72 [1983]) and, subject to certain exceptions not alleged in the current case, the “ ‘landowner’s liability for the condition of real estate generally ceases when possession and control is transferred’ ” (Edwards v Van Skiver, supra at 958, quoting Slomin v Skaarland Constr. Corp., 207 AD2d 639, 641 [1994]; see Romel v Reale, 155 AD2d 747, 748 [1989]). Here, it is undisputed that Coons and Bailey were in possession and control of the subject premises under the terms of a duly executed land contract for approximately two years before plaintiffs accident. The contract provided in relevant part that the “purchasers will be solely responsible for all repairs and maintenance” on the property. Defendant’s general right to cancel the contract for nonpayment or other material breach does not, as asserted by plaintiff, provide a basis upon which to impose liability for this accident. Nor does the fact that he had occasionally visited the premises and requested Coons and Bailey to clean certain debris (with some of those requests followed and some not followed) establish that he retained control over the property.

Cardona, EJ., Spain, Mugglin and Kane, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.