Miguel Angel Mendoza et al., Respondents, v. City of New York et al., Appellants, et al., Defendants

Miguel Angel Mendoza et al., Respondents, v City of New York et al., Appellants, et al., Defendants. [55 NYS3d 22] [MAJORITY] Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Fernando Tapia, J.), entered August 15, 2016, which denied defendants the City of New York, the New York City Economic Development Corporation, and the New York City Department of Small Business Services’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion granted. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly. As an initial matter, plaintiffs do not challenge defendants’ contention that the New York City Economic Development Corporation, and the New York City Department of Small Business Services are not proper parties to this action, and the complaint should have been dismissed as to these defendants. We find that the City was entitled to summary judgment because it was an out-of-possession landlord that was not responsible for the repair or maintenance of the area where plaintiff Miguel Angel Mendoza’s accident occurred, and plaintiffs failed to submit any evidence to raise an issue of fact as to whether the area where the accident occurred constituted a structural defect (see Ross v Betty G. Reader Revocable Trust, 86 AD3d 419, 420 [1st Dept 2011]). Concur—Friedman, J.R, Richter, Moskowitz, Gische and Kapnick, JJ.