110 Central Park South Corp. v. Board of Managers of 116 Central Park South Condominium

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

110 Central Park South Corp. v. Board of Managers of 116 Central Park South Condominium

106 A.D.3d 520, 964 N.Y.S.2d 906

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedMay 16, 2013

StatusPublished

This text of 106 A.D.3d 520 (110 Central Park South Corp. v. Board of Managers of 116 Central Park South Condominium) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

110 Central Park South Corp. v. Board of Managers of 116 Central Park South Condominium, 106 A.D.3d 520, 964 N.Y.S.2d 906 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Ellen M. Coin, J.), entered on or about October 19, 2012, which, insofar as appealed from as limited by the briefs, in this action seeking, inter alia, the removal of a chimney flue extension attached to plaintiffs building, denied plaintiffs motion for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The court correctly held that, where a chimney extension altered pursuant to Administrative Code of City of NY § 27-860 was no longer in use, the test for whether it had to be removed was whether it constituted a hazard or nuisance (see e.g. Lichter v 349 Amsterdam Ave. Corp., 22 AD3d 394 [1st Dept 2005], lv denied 6 NY3d 704 [2006]). As factual issues exist on those questions, summary judgment was properly denied.

We have considered plaintiffs remaining contentions, including its challenges to the standards applied by the motion court, and find them unavailing. Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Saxe, Moskowitz and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Ellen M. Coin, J.), entered on or about October 19, 2012, which, insofar as appealed from as limited by the briefs, in this action seeking, inter alia, the removal of a chimney flue extension attached to plaintiffs building, denied plaintiffs motion for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The court correctly held that, where a chimney extension altered pursuant to Administrative Code of City of NY § 27-860 was no longer in use, the test for whether it had to be removed was whether it constituted a hazard or nuisance (see e.g. Lichter v 349 Amsterdam Ave. Corp., 22 AD3d 394 [1st Dept 2005], lv denied 6 NY3d 704 [2006]). As factual issues exist on those questions, summary judgment was properly denied.

We have considered plaintiffs remaining contentions, including its challenges to the standards applied by the motion court, and find them unavailing. Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Saxe, Moskowitz and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

106 A.D.3d 520, 964 N.Y.S.2d 906, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/110-central-park-south-corp-v-board-of-managers-of-116-central-park-south-nyappdiv-2013.