Plaintiff appeals from (1) an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County (Diane A. Lebedeff, J.), entered October 18, 2005, which granted defendants' motion for summary judgment and (2) an order (same court and Judge), entered May 26, 2006, which upon reargument, adhered to the prior order.

Per Curiam.

Order (Diane A. Lebedeff, J.), entered May 26, 2006, affirmed, with $10 costs. Appeal from order entered October 18, 2005 dismissed as superseded by the appeal from the subsequent order.

Defendant met its prima facie burden of establishing entitlement to summary judgment by submitting evidence that it was an out-of-possession landlord; that the underlying accident arose out of the activities of its tenant, third-party defendant All Seasons, Inc. in erecting a partition wall, over which defendant exercised no control and had no notice; and that plaintiff's injuries were not caused by any building code violations or negligent conduct attributable to defendant (see Zvinys v Richfield Investment Co., 25 AD3d 358 [2006], lv denied 7 NY3d 706 [2006]).

In opposition, plaintiff failed to raise an issue of fact. Plaintiff presented no expert or other competent evidence establishing the cause of the collapse of the partition wall or the existence of a defective condition. Assuming the existence of a defective condition, under the terms of the governing lease, defendant's only maintenance obligation extended to the exterior and public portions of the building. Because the alleged defect in this case did not involve the exterior or public portions of the building, but rather the interior design of the building's workspace, over which the tenant exercised exclusive control, plaintiff failed to rebut defendant's prima facie showing (see Brockington v Brokkfield Dev. Corp., 20 AD3d 382 [2005]).

Although a lease provision reserving the landlord's right to enter the premises for inspection and repair may constitute sufficient retention of control to impose liability for injuries [*2]caused by a defective condition (see Gomez v 192 E. 151st St. Assoc., L.P., 26 AD3d 276 [2006]), "only the existence of a significant structural or design defect that is contrary to a specific statutory safety provision would support the imposition of [such] liability against a landlord" (see Velazquez v Tyler Graphics, Ltd., 214 AD2d 489 [1995]). Here, plaintiff presented no evidence of the existence of a significant structural or design defect.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.
I concur
Decision Date: November 06, 2008