In a recent ruling, the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York decided that Nissan Motor Acceptance Corporation is not liable for a slip and fall accident that occurred on a sidewalk adjacent to property it did not control. The court's decision, made on October 14, 2026, affects Gloria Tellez Salazar, the plaintiff, who sought damages for her injuries. This case highlights the complexities of liability in personal injury cases, particularly regarding property ownership and control.
The dispute began when Salazar filed a lawsuit against multiple parties, including Nissan Motor Acceptance Corporation and Carol Joy Family Properties, LLC, after she allegedly sustained injuries from a slip and fall incident in March 2021. Salazar claimed that Nissan, as a mortgage holder on the property owned by Carol Joy Family Properties, should be held responsible for her injuries. The case was filed under docket number 2024-13380 in Queens County.
Salazar argued that Nissan's mortgage on the property gave it some level of responsibility for maintaining the sidewalk where she fell. However, Nissan contended that it was merely an out-of-possession mortgagee and did not have control over the property at the time of the incident. The case progressed through the court system, with Nissan filing a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the claims against it.
On October 11, 2024, the Supreme Court of Queens County granted Nissan's motion for summary judgment, ruling that Salazar did not present sufficient evidence to prove that Nissan owed her a duty of care. Salazar appealed this decision, leading to the recent ruling by the Appellate Division.
The Appellate Division upheld the lower court's decision, affirming that Nissan did not have a duty to Salazar. The court stated, "A mortgagee in possession is one that takes control of mortgaged land by agreement with the mortgagor, usually upon default of the loan secured by the mortgage." The ruling emphasized that liability for injuries on a property typically requires ownership, occupancy, control, or special use of that property, none of which applied to Nissan in this case.
The judges involved in the ruling included Colleen D. Duffy, Linda Christopher, Carl J. Landicino, and Susan Quirk. They collectively agreed that Salazar failed to raise a triable issue of fact that would warrant overturning the lower court's decision.
This ruling clarifies the legal responsibilities of mortgage holders in personal injury cases. It establishes that simply holding a mortgage on a property does not automatically impose liability for accidents occurring on adjacent sidewalks or areas not directly controlled by the mortgagee. This decision may influence future personal injury claims where the relationship between property ownership and liability is in question.
For Salazar, this ruling means that she will not receive damages from Nissan for her injuries. The decision reinforces the notion that plaintiffs must provide clear evidence of a defendant's duty of care to succeed in personal injury claims.
Looking ahead, it is unclear whether Salazar will seek to appeal this decision further. The court filing did not indicate any related cases pending that could impact this ruling. However, the outcome serves as a reminder of the importance of establishing a clear connection between a defendant's control over a property and their liability for injuries that occur on or near that property.