Court Opinion

ID: 6096664
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-01-13 20:30:39.788245+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:53:25.906006
License: Public Domain

Sullivan, J.,
concurs in a separate memorandum as follows: While I agree with the disposition reached by the court in reinstating the complaint, I write to express my view as to the case against Colgate-Palmolive. Since the lease provision requiring the landlord to maintain the “[b]uilding and the [p]remises and the fixtures and appurtenances therein” does not relieve the tenant of its common-law duty to maintain the premises in a reasonably safe condition (Zito v 241 Church St. Corp., 223 AD2d 353 [1996]; Chadis v Grand Union, 158 AD2d 443 [1990]), Colgate-Palmolive is not entitled to summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims against it. For that reason, and that reason alone, I concur in the denial of Colgate-Palmolive’s motion.