Chai Pok Ko v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Chai Pok Ko v. City of New York

203 A.D.2d 410, 610 N.Y.S.2d 854, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3974

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

DecidedApril 18, 1994

StatusPublished

This text of 203 A.D.2d 410 (Chai Pok Ko v. City of New York) 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

Chai Pok Ko v. City of New York, 203 A.D.2d 410, 610 N.Y.S.2d 854, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3974 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for the negligent destruction of real property, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Price, J.), dated April 10, 1992, which denied their motion for summary judgment and granted the defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The subject premises, owned by the plaintiffs, were destroyed by fire in 1986. Approximately five years later, the defendant City of New York commenced an unsafe building proceeding in an effort to abate the hazardous condition which existed on the premises. In bringing the instant action, the plaintiffs claim that the defendant negligently failed to notify them of the impending destruction of the fire-ravaged structure located on the premises. However, we conclude that there is no question that the City complied with the notice provisions of the Administrative Code (see, Administrative Code of City of NY § 26-236 [b]; § 26-244 [d]). Accordingly,the Supreme Court properly awarded summary judgment to the City. Mangano, P. J., Ritter, Friedmann and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action to recover damages for the negligent destruction of real property, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Price, J.), dated April 10, 1992, which denied their motion for summary judgment and granted the defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The subject premises, owned by the plaintiffs, were destroyed by fire in 1986. Approximately five years later, the defendant City of New York commenced an unsafe building proceeding in an effort to abate the hazardous condition which existed on the premises. In bringing the instant action, the plaintiffs claim that the defendant negligently failed to notify them of the impending destruction of the fire-ravaged structure located on the premises. However, we conclude that there is no question that the City complied with the notice provisions of the Administrative Code (see, Administrative Code of City of NY § 26-236 [b]; § 26-244 [d]). Accordingly,the Supreme Court properly awarded summary judgment to the City. Mangano, P. J., Ritter, Friedmann and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

203 A.D.2d 410, 610 N.Y.S.2d 854, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3974, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chai-pok-ko-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-1994.