Plaintiff Thomas Seltzer, an employee of Bloomingdale’s, was injured when he fell on a staircase used solely for Bloomingdale employees in the store. He sued the mall owner Riverside Square for negligence, claiming that it had some degree of control over the staircase which allegedly had irregular steps. The issue in Seltzer v. Riverside Square Limited Partnership, 2023 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 453 (App. Div. Mar. 27, 2023) was whether the defendant mall owner owed a duty to plaintiff if it did not own or maintain Bloomingdale’s or the interior staircase.
Bloomingdale’s, which was built as a stand-alone department store in 1959, was now part of a 2-level enclosed shopping mall constructed around it. The mall was owned and operated by Riverside Square. Under the terms of an agreement with Bloomingdale’s, Riverside Square had no authority to modify Bloomingdale’s or the staircase.
The defendant Riverside Square moved for a summary judgment dismissal, contending that it owed no duty to Seltzer because it did not own or maintain Bloomingdale’s or the staircase. The trial court judge denied summary judgment. The court found that “there are genuine issues of material fact relative to both the subject accident and the issue of control and the degree thereof, regarding the overall area where [Seltzer] had his trip and fall accident is a disputed fact.” The court felt that it had to accept Seltzer’s version of facts, and as such grant him the benefit of all inferences that such facts support.
Riverside Square filed an application before the Appellate Division on an interlocutory basis, seeking leave to appeal. The Appellate Division agreed to accept the interlocutory appeal. [“Interlocutory” means the appeal is filed before the final conclusion of the case.]
The Appellate Division disagreed with the trial court’s decision. The Court found that the trial court was incorrect in finding that there were genuine issues of material fact. The Appellate Division pointed out that there was no question that there was a valid agreement concerning Riverside Square’s responsibility and obligations toward Bloomingdale’s property.
The Court further held that Riverside Square did not owe a duty to Seltzer. It pointed out that the staircase where Seltzer was injured was part of Bloomingdale’s premises when the department store was built, long before the mall was built. The Court noted that there was no support in the record for Seltzer’s contention that Riverside Square “retains some degree of control and responsibility over issues such as repairs and maintenance, even on property of its admitted tenant Bloomingdale’s.” Additionally, the Appellate Division held that under the clear terms of the agreement with Bloomindale’s, Riverside Square had no obligation to maintain any aspect of Bloomingdale’s premises. Further, there were no facts indicating Riverside Square exercised any control or maintenance over the staircase that would contradict its interpretation of the agreement.
Thus, Seltzer’s liability expert’s opinion concerning the construction and maintenance of the staircase was “of no import” because Riverside Square did not construct the staircase and had no duty to ensure it could be safely traversed.
Thus, the Appellate Division found that there were no genuine issues of material facts in dispute and that Riverside Square was entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law. Therefore, it reversed the trial court’s order denying summary judgment and remanded the case back to the trial court for an entry of an order granting summary judgment dismissal of Seltzer’s action.
