Citation Numbers: 158 A.D.2d 443, 550 N.Y.S.2d 908, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1263
Filed Date: 2/5/1990
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 10/31/2024
In Putnam v Stout (46 AD2d 812, affd 38 NY2d 607), this court affirmed a judgment based upon a jury verdict which was in favor of an injured plaintiff and which was against both a landlord and a tenant. The Court of Appeals upheld this finding of liability, as well as its apportionment of liability between the two defendants. In so doing, both the Court of Appeals and the Appellate Division necessarily recognized that the tenant had a common-law duty to remove dangerous defects from premises occupied by it, even though the landlord may have made an explicit contractual promise in the lease to keep the subject premises in good repair.
The holding in Putnam v Stout (supra) is consistent with the general rule that a tenant may be held liable for negligently allowing the demised premises to become dangerous, and that such potential for liability exists independently of the terms of the lease and irrespective of whether the tenant actually covenanted to keep the property in good repair (see generally, 2B Warren, New York Negligence, Landlord and Tenant, § 18.01, at 1041-1043; Prosser and Keeton, Torts § 63, at 434-435 [5th ed]). Grand Union has essentially conceded that the area where the plaintiff’s accident occurred is a part of the demised premises. The possibility that other tenants at the shopping center might also have a possessory interest in the parking lot (whether this is so is not entirely clear) is immaterial. In Putnam v Stout (38 NY2d 607, 613, supra), the defendant tenant was held liable even though it had been established that other tenants shared a possessory interest in the outdoor area where the accident occurred.
Therefore, Grand Union is not entitled to summary judgment against the plaintiff, either on the basis that the codefendant landlord had agreed to keep the parking lot in good