Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The Supreme Court properly dismissed the complaint insofar as it is asserted against the respondents. The record demonstrates that the respondents were landlords out of possession and did not retain sufficient dominion and control over the leased premises where the accident occurred to impose liability upon them for an allegedly defective condition existing on the premises (see, Aprea v. Carol Mgt. Corp., 190 A.D.2d 838; Canela v. Foodway Supermarket, 188 A.D.2d 416; Brown v. Weinreb, 183 A.D.2d 562; Hecht v. Vanderbilt Assocs., 141 A.D.2d 696, 699; Silver v Brodsky, 112 A.D.2d 213, 214). Contrary to the appellants' contentions, we find no basis in this record to conclude that the trap door on the premises constituted a defective condition or that the respondents violated any statutory regulation. Bracken, J.P., Rosenblatt, Lawrence, Krausman and Goldstein, JJ., concur.