Cam v. Mainor

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Cam v. Mainor

250 A.D.2d 536, 672 N.Y.S.2d 706, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5936

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

DecidedMay 26, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 250 A.D.2d 536 (Cam v. Mainor) 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

Cam v. Mainor, 250 A.D.2d 536, 672 N.Y.S.2d 706, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5936 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Barbara Kapnick, J.), entered October 28, 1997, which, inter alia, denied defendant Morningside Heights Housing Corporation’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against it, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The motion court correctly concluded that there were outstanding factual issues as to the cause of the flooding in plaintiff’s apartment precluding summary dismissal of the claims against defendant Housing Corporation (Schneider v Ardsley Tenants Corp., 191 AD2d 265). This is particularly so since plaintiff was, in light of the Housing Corporation’s continuing failure to turn over certain presumptively relevant documents it would reasonably be expected to possess and produce, entitled to the inference that those documents contained information favorable to its claims against the corporate defendant (see, Gruntz v Deepdale Gen. Hosp., 163 AD2d 564). Concur — Milonas, J. P., Nardelli, Mazzarelli and Andrias, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Barbara Kapnick, J.), entered October 28, 1997, which, inter alia, denied defendant Morningside Heights Housing Corporation’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against it, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The motion court correctly concluded that there were outstanding factual issues as to the cause of the flooding in plaintiff’s apartment precluding summary dismissal of the claims against defendant Housing Corporation (Schneider v Ardsley Tenants Corp., 191 AD2d 265). This is particularly so since plaintiff was, in light of the Housing Corporation’s continuing failure to turn over certain presumptively relevant documents it would reasonably be expected to possess and produce, entitled to the inference that those documents contained information favorable to its claims against the corporate defendant (see, Gruntz v Deepdale Gen. Hosp., 163 AD2d 564). Concur — Milonas, J. P., Nardelli, Mazzarelli and Andrias, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

250 A.D.2d 536, 672 N.Y.S.2d 706, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5936, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cam-v-mainor-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack