In Yehia v. Marphil Realty Corp., plaintiff was injured in a fire that occurred in a building owned by defendant.  Plaintiff was employed by a grocery store in the building, and also lived in a bedroom located in the rear of the store.  The fire occurred while plaintiff was asleep in his bedroom.

Plaintiff alleged defendant was negligent in its ownership and maintenance of the premises and that it violated several fire regulations and occupancy laws.  Defendant moved for summary judgment arguing that it was an out-of-possession landlord and that it did not have notice of any allegedly dangerous or defective conditions. Plaintiff opposed arguing that defendant retained sufficient control over the leased premises, which imposes liability, and it did have actual notice of the dangerous conditions.

The trial court denied defendants motion and the Second Department affirmed.  The court held that a landowners duty to maintain his property in a safe condition is premised on the landowners exercise of control over the property.  Here, the lease gave defendant the right to reenter the premises at all times during business hours to inspect the premises, and the right to reenter to make repairs and improvements to all part so of the building.  The court held that defendant failed to show that it relinquished complete control over the property and defendant failed to demonstrate that it did not have actual or constructive notice.

In general, a landowner who has transferred possession and control is not liable for injuries caused by dangerous conditions on the property.  As this case shows, for the court to recognize an out-of-possession landowner, it is important that any tenant leases reflect a full transfer of possession and control.  Please email Brian Gibbons with any questions.  Thanks to Anne Henry for her contribution.