[brief] The Law Division also dismissed all of Plaintiffs’ common law claims by holding that, generally speaking, a commercial tenant in a retail mall does not have a duty to maintain parking areas.  (See Transcript, citing Kandrac v. Marrazzo’s Market at Robbinsville, 429 N.J. 79 (App. Div. 2012)).  Nonetheless, a more careful inspection of Kandrac demonstrates that this principle was announced in a case in which the lease agreement – in contrast to the leases in this case – “squarely assigns the duty to maintain the area where plaintiff was injured to the landlord. ”  Kandrac, 429 N.J.Super. at 89.  Tellingly, the Kandrac court critically observed “the assignment of responsibilities in the lease, within the context of a multi-tenant shopping center, also impacts the scope of tenant’s ability to address conditions in the parking lot. ”  Id.  Thus, in Kandrac, the fact that the lease did, in fact, place an exclusive duty on the landlord to maintain the parking lot, where the plaintiff fell, was essential to the outcome.  In Kandrac, the lease at issue provided:  The LESSOR covenants and agrees that it shall maintain the common areas of the shopping center in good operating condition and repair ... [and t]he LESSOR shall resurface the sidewalk, parking and driveway areas when the same shall be reasonably necessary together with the restriping of the parking areas.  *Kandrac*, 429 N.J.Super. at 482.  Critically, this language or any form of similar language, does not appear in the leases of the Tenant Defendants.  In fact, as the earlier review of Article 3 demonstrates, the language of these leases did not include language placing the Landlord under such an “exclusive” duty at all; and, in fact, included language which *three times* placed the Tenant Defendants under a duty to maintain the property.  Truth be told, *Kandrac* serves as instruction as to all the things which place the Tenant Defendants under a duty in this case.  -  In *Kandrac*, the lease specifically defined and identified the “common areas” over which the landlord was obligated.  “The lease defined ‘common areas’ as ‘employees’ parking areas, service roads, loading facilities, sidewalks, and customers' parking areas[.]’”  *Kandrac*, 429 N.J.Super. at 82.  As noted, the so-called “common areas” are neither defined nor identified in the Tenant Defendants’ leases.  -  In *Kandrac*, the lease “squarely assign[ed] the duty to maintain the area where plaintiff was injured to the landlord. ”  *Kandrac*, 429 N.J.Super. at 89.  Notably, the tenant defendant in *Kandrac* did not have to “supplement” the lease with improper statements of subjective intent, see Deerhurst Estates, 64 N.J.Super. at 149; or, obscure provisions of the lease under which the tenant had assumed some duty of maintaining that area.  Here, the subject leases plainly place a duty on the Tenant Defendants to maintain the walkways adjacent to the premises.  In the end, the significant distinctions between this case and Kandrac, as highlighted within the Kandrac decision, itself, only underscore both how inapplicable the ultimate holding of Kandrac is to this case and why a different holding is required here.  In Kandrac, the defendant tenant was one of thirty-six tenants in a large commercial mall.  This case, however, involves a small, strip-mall property with five tenant locations, surrounded by a parking area and walkways in which every location is “not distant” to any tenant location.