This page summarizes and comments on a published court decision. It is general information, not legal advice, and reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship. Every case depends on its own facts. Unless this page says otherwise, The Eskesen Law Firm did not represent any party in this case.
Bottom line
A landlord that has leased a property to a tenant and given up possession and control is generally not responsible for conditions there, but it may be when the lease kept the repair that caused the hazard with the landlord. Here, the First Department reinstated an injured woman’s claim against a supermarket’s landlord, because the lease made the landlord responsible for structural repairs, including the roof, and the landlord did not affirmatively demonstrate that a roof leak was not the source of the puddle where she slipped; her own motion against the supermarket was denied, leaving notice, and her own comparative fault, for trial.
The case
- Court
- Appellate Division, First Department
- Decided
- November 5, 2026
- Case
- Love v Chang Li Supermarket, Inc.
- Citation
- 2026 NY Slip Op 06527
- Official text
- Read the decision on the New York courts’ official reporter site
The facts
The plaintiff alleged that she slipped and fell on a puddle in a supermarket. She sued Chang Li Supermarket, Inc., and its landlord, Tompkins Management Corp. She testified that water was dripping from the ceiling when she fell, and that photographs of missing and water-stained ceiling tiles accurately showed the area above where she fell. Tompkins Management moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint against it, and the Supreme Court, Bronx County, granted the motion. In a later order, the court denied the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on liability against Chang Li and to strike Chang Li’s comparative negligence defenses. She appealed from both orders.
The holding
The First Department unanimously reversed the first order, reinstating the complaint against Tompkins Management, and unanimously affirmed the second. Tompkins Management, “an out-of-possession landlord, failed to establish prima facie that it was not contractually obligated to repair or maintain the premises” (2026 NY Slip Op 06527, *1). “The lease between Tompkins Management and its tenant Chang Li imposed the duty to make structural repairs to the premises, including repairs to the roof, on Tompkins Management, and Tompkins Management failed to establish that a leak in the roof did not create the puddle on which plaintiff slipped and fell” (id.). Evidence in the record also indicated that the landlord had repaired the roof for leaks before the accident (id.). Against the supermarket, however, the plaintiff’s own motion failed, as the court found “triable issues of fact exist as to whether Chang Li had actual or constructive notice of the puddle” (id.): the surveillance video did not prove that the manager saw the puddle, or that it was there long enough to establish constructive notice as a matter of law (id.). And whether she “was comparatively negligent for failing to see the puddle is for the jury to consider” (id. at *2).
What changed
Nothing new: this applies settled law, including the court’s earlier decisions in Thomas v Triboro Maintenance Corp. (223 AD3d 582 [1st Dept 2024]) and Hakim v 65 Eighth Ave., LLC (42 AD3d 374 [1st Dept 2007]).
What it means
- A landlord that has leased a property and turned over possession and control to a tenant is generally not liable for the property’s condition after that. But a lease can keep some duties, such as structural repairs, with the landlord.
- When the lease makes the landlord responsible for the roof, and a roof leak may have caused the hazard, the landlord may have to answer for it. Here, the landlord did not show that a roof leak did not cause the puddle.
- Winning summary judgment against the store in a slip-and-fall case can be difficult. The injured person generally must show that the store created the puddle, knew of it, or that it was there long enough that the store should have found it. Here, the video did not prove notice, so that question remains for trial.
Our view
Commentary by Frank N. Eskesen. This section is opinion.
This decision is a useful contrast with our entry on Mella v Russian Samovar, Inc. (First Department, October 20, 2026), where a restaurant’s landlord was out of the case because the low lighting blamed for a fall was set by the restaurant’s employees, not a structural problem. Here, the problem may have come from the roof, and the lease put the roof on the landlord. The same puddle can have two sources of responsibility: the store, for what happens on its floor, and the landlord, for what comes through its roof. Two lessons. 1. If you fall in a store due to liquid on the floor, look up as well as down. If you are able, photograph the floor, the ceiling, and anything dripping, get the names of witnesses, and ask that the store keep its video. Get legal advice promptly. 2. For lawyers, get the lease early. It may show who had to fix what, and the landlord’s repair history may matter as much as the store’s cleaning records. Who had the duty to fix the roof can decide who has to answer for the puddle.
Topics
Court: First Department. Year: 2026. Result: reversed (first order); affirmed (second order).
Reviewed by Frank N. Eskesen, admitted in New York since 2000. Decided November 5, 2026. Posted November 11, 2026.
Questions about your own accident?
Call us for a free consultation. Calls answered live 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.