A.M. v. New York City Hous. Auth.

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

A.M. v. New York City Hous. Auth.

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedApril 30, 2019

Docket2019 NYSlipOp 50623(U)

StatusPublished

This text of A.M. v. New York City Hous. Auth. (A.M. v. New York City Hous. Auth.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

A.M. v. New York City Hous. Auth., (N.Y. Ct. App. 2019).

Pincite

Opinion

A.M., an infant by her mother and Natural Guardian, Janet Vega and Janet Vega, Individually, Plaintiffs-Respondents,

against

New York City Housing Authority, Building Management Associates, Inc., SEBCO Management Company, Inc., and Wayne Wright, Defendants-Appellants.

Defendants appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Bronx County (Donald A. Miles, J.), dated June 6, 2018, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Per Curiam.

Order (Donald A. Miles, J.), dated June 6, 2018, affirmed, with $10 costs.

In this action where the infant plaintiff allegedly sustained burns due to hot water emanating from a bathroom sink, plaintiffs raised several material triable issues of fact as to whether the building defendants failed to maintain the apartment building's boiler and domestic hot water system in a reasonably safe condition, and had notice of the excessively hot water in the premises (see Simmons v Sacchetti, 15 NY3d 797, 798 [2010]; Eaderesto v 22 Leroy Owners Corp., 101 AD3d 450, 451 [2012]). Such issues are raised by evidence that, two months prior to the accident, defendants' plumber performed maintenance on the boiler that included raising the boiler temperature to over 140 degrees in order to diagnose a malfunction and failed to reset it to its usual setting of 120 degrees (see Sawchuk v 335 Realty 58 Assoc., 44 AD3d 532 [2007]); that an inspection by ACS made after the accident found the water temperature to be more than 140 degrees (see Rosencrans v Kiselak, 52 AD3d 492 [2008]); that other tenants had complained about the hot water conditions (see Clindinin v New York City Hous. Auth., 117 AD3d 628 [2014]) and the affidavit of the infant plaintiff's treating physician that the water temperature must have been between 140 and 150 degrees to have caused the burns that the infant plaintiff sustained (see Lindsey v H.B. Assoc., L.L.C., 24 AD3d 274 [2005]).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.

I concur I concur I concur
Decision Date: April 30, 2019

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

A.M., an infant by her mother and Natural Guardian, Janet Vega and Janet Vega, Individually, Plaintiffs-Respondents,

against

New York City Housing Authority, Building Management Associates, Inc., SEBCO Management Company, Inc., and Wayne Wright, Defendants-Appellants.

Defendants appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Bronx County (Donald A. Miles, J.), dated June 6, 2018, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Per Curiam.

Order (Donald A. Miles, J.), dated June 6, 2018, affirmed, with $10 costs.

In this action where the infant plaintiff allegedly sustained burns due to hot water emanating from a bathroom sink, plaintiffs raised several material triable issues of fact as to whether the building defendants failed to maintain the apartment building's boiler and domestic hot water system in a reasonably safe condition, and had notice of the excessively hot water in the premises (see Simmons v Sacchetti, 15 NY3d 797, 798 [2010]; Eaderesto v 22 Leroy Owners Corp., 101 AD3d 450, 451 [2012]). Such issues are raised by evidence that, two months prior to the accident, defendants' plumber performed maintenance on the boiler that included raising the boiler temperature to over 140 degrees in order to diagnose a malfunction and failed to reset it to its usual setting of 120 degrees (see Sawchuk v 335 Realty 58 Assoc., 44 AD3d 532 [2007]); that an inspection by ACS made after the accident found the water temperature to be more than 140 degrees (see Rosencrans v Kiselak, 52 AD3d 492 [2008]); that other tenants had complained about the hot water conditions (see Clindinin v New York City Hous. Auth., 117 AD3d 628 [2014]) and the affidavit of the infant plaintiff's treating physician that the water temperature must have been between 140 and 150 degrees to have caused the burns that the infant plaintiff sustained (see Lindsey v H.B. Assoc., L.L.C., 24 AD3d 274 [2005]).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.

I concur I concur I concur
Decision Date: April 30, 2019

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

A.M. v. New York City Hous. Auth., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/am-v-new-york-city-hous-auth-nyappterm-2019.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack