SANTIAGO v. PORT AUTH. OF N.Y. NEW JERSEY

The general rule is that a landlord out of possession may not be held liable for plaintiff's injuries in the absence of specific violations of the Administrative Code not here demonstrated (see, Romano v Browne, 180 A.D.2d 515, 516). Plaintiff's reliance on Guzman v Haven Plaza Hous. Dev. Fund Co. ( 69 N.Y.2d 559) is misplaced. In Guzman, specific Administrative Code violations concerning illumination and handrail clearance were established which violations were obligations of the landlord under the general provision to maintain a safe building (supra, at 564-565). Here, plaintiff offers no evidence of specific Administrative Code violations.

Moreover, as we held in Love v Port Auth. ( 168 A.D.2d 222), under similar circumstances, The Port Authority is in any event unaffected by any provision of the Administrative Code since The Port Authority functions as a State Agency exempt from municipal regulation.

Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Carro, Ellerin, Wallach and Rubin, JJ.