The New York Appellate Division recently ruled on a significant negligence case involving Marielle Leone and R&J Realty Co., LLC. The decision, issued on June 17, 2026, addresses the responsibilities of landlords in personal injury claims. This ruling affects not only the parties involved but also sets important precedents for future negligence cases in New York.
Marielle Leone, the injured plaintiff, filed a lawsuit after a garage rolling gate fell on her in October 2016. The gate was part of a building owned by Jeffrey Anschlowar and the late Robert Anschlowar. At the time of the incident, the building was leased to Leone's employer, JECG Corp. The case has seen multiple appeals and motions, ultimately leading to the Appellate Division's recent decision.
The dispute began when Leone and her husband, who is suing on her behalf, initiated three separate actions against various parties, including the landlords and the manufacturers of the garage gate. Following the death of Robert Anschlowar in 2019, Jeffrey Anschlowar took over as the executor of his estate, continuing the legal battle. In 2021, the three actions were consolidated into one case, which complicated the proceedings.
In 2022, the landlords and JECG Corp. defendants filed motions for summary judgment, seeking to dismiss the negligence claims against them. The landlords argued that they were out-of-possession landlords and thus not liable for the injuries that occurred on their premises. The Supreme Court of Queens County ruled in their favor, leading to the appeals that were recently decided by the Appellate Division.
The court ruled that the landlords were not responsible for the negligence claims because they were out-of-possession landlords. According to the opinion, "An out-of-possession landlord is not liable for injuries that occur on its premises unless the landlord has retained control over the premises and has a duty imposed by statute or assumed by contract or a course of conduct." The judges concluded that the landlords had demonstrated their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, dismissing the negligence claims against them.
The judges involved in the ruling included Cheryl E. Chambers, Paul Wooten, Lourdes M. Ventura, and Elena Goldberg Velazquez. They affirmed the lower court's decision to grant summary judgment in favor of the landlords, stating that the plaintiffs failed to raise any triable issues of fact that would warrant a different outcome.
Furthermore, the court also addressed the plaintiffs' attempt to amend their bill of particulars to include violations of the Administrative Code of the City of New York. The Appellate Division found that the proposed amendment was "palpably insufficient and patently devoid of merit," thus upholding the lower court's decision to deny the plaintiffs' request.
This ruling has significant implications for personal injury law in New York. It clarifies the responsibilities of landlords regarding injuries that occur on their properties, particularly in cases where they do not retain control over the premises. The decision reinforces the idea that landlords may not be held liable for accidents if they can demonstrate that they were out-of-possession and did not have a contractual or statutory duty to maintain the specific area where the injury occurred.
The outcome of this case may influence future negligence claims involving landlords and tenants, particularly in determining liability in similar situations. It highlights the importance of understanding the definitions of landlord responsibilities and the conditions under which they may be held liable for injuries on their properties.
Looking ahead, the plaintiffs may consider their options for further legal action, including the possibility of appealing the ruling. However, the court's decision in this case sets a strong precedent that may complicate any future attempts to hold landlords accountable for injuries occurring on leased properties. As of now, there are no related cases pending that could impact this ruling.