Proceeding upon an order of the Court of Appeals ( Wilson v. Jaybro Realty Development Co., 289 N.Y. 410) which reverses the judgment and order of this court ( 264 App. Div. 776), and remits the case for disposition of the questions previously left undecided. The actions are by the plaintiff-wife to recover damages for personal injuries suffered when she fell as the result of stepping into a hole on the sidewalk in front of premises owned by defendant Jaybro Realty Development Co., Inc., and occupied as a store by defendant Manhattan Food Stores, Inc., under a lease agreement with defendant owner; and by her husband for loss of services. The sidewalk is on the land owned by defendant Jaybro Realty Development Co., Inc. Judgment against defendant Jaybro Realty Development Co., Inc., entered on the verdict of a jury in favor of plaintiffs, unanimously affirmed, with costs. Order setting aside the verdict in favor of plaintiffs and against defendant Manhattan Food Stores, Inc., modified on the law by striking from the decretal paragraph the words "a new trial granted" and inserting in place thereof the words "the complaint dismissed on the law, with costs; judgment to be entered accordingly." As thus modified, the order is unanimously affirmed, with costs to respondent Manhattan Food Stores, Inc. We dispose of the undecided issues as follows: (1) The contention that defendant owner was out of possession and therefore not liable for maintaining or failing to correct the condition in the sidewalk is without merit. Inasmuch as the owner, under the terms of the lease agreement, had the right to re-enter and make repairs, it was not so completely out of control as to be exempt from liability for a dangerous condition. ( Appel v. Muller, 262 N.Y. 276.) Furthermore, it does not appear that the sidewalk was part of the premises which were demised to the lessee. (2) The contentions that there was error in receiving evidence of an aggravation to the original injury sustained by the plaintiff-wife, and that the verdicts were excessive, are likewise without merit. (3) On the question as to whether the implicit finding of no contributory negligence was against the weight of the evidence we hold that such issue was for the jury and it was submitted in a charge to which there was no exception in that respect. (4) We hold against the contention that defendant lessee is liable to plaintiffs for the consequence of the dangerous condition in the sidewalk. The defendant lessee did not have imposed on it the duty to repair the sidewalk because (a) it does not appear that the leasehold includes the sidewalk; and (b) the theory of liability on the ground that the plaintiff-wife was a business visitor is not applicable where the portion of the premises upon which the accident occurred was not under the exclusive control of the lessee, and the defendant lessee herein was not shown to have had such control of the sidewalk. Finally, defendant lessee's contention that the Village of Great Neck is liable is not sustained by the evidence.