Stuart D. Markowitz, P.C., New York (Thomas Torto of counsel), for appellant.

Law Offices of Fishman and Cabrera, Tarrytown (Robert Adamo of counsel), for respondent.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (James D'Auguste, J.), entered on or about October 14, 2021, which granted defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff insurer's claim for damages arising from a burst water pipe, which caused damage to the demised premises and to parts of the building outside the demised premises, is barred by the provision of the lease waiving both parties' rights of subrogation. Repairs to the building outside the demised premises were within the ambit of the provision, which states that the waiver of subrogation "shall be deemed to include any loss or damage to the demised premises." Lease provisions waiving subrogation rights have been found to apply to any loss to the tenant's property resulting from covered hazards, not only loss within the demised premises (see e.g. Kaf-Kaf, Inc. v Rodless Decorations, 90 NY2d 654, 660 [1997]; Cresvale Intl. v Reuters Am., 257 AD2d 502, 505 [1st Dept 1999]). Plaintiff acknowledges that the damage arose from a condition within the demised premises, and asserts that defendant had the obligation to maintain or repair the condition. Thus, this loss arises out of the landlord-tenant relationship and falls squarely within scope of the broad waiver provision (see Atlantic Mut. Ins. Co. v Elliana Props., 261 AD2d 296, 296 [1st Dept 1999]).

We have considered plaintiff's remaining contentions and find them unavailing. Concur—Gische, J.P., Kern, Gesmer, Scarpulla, Rodriguez, JJ.