Clarke v. 158 St. & Riverside Drive Housing Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Clarke v. 158 St. & Riverside Drive Housing Co.

245 A.D.2d 208, 665 N.Y.S.2d 898, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13324

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

DecidedDecember 23, 1997

StatusPublished

This text of 245 A.D.2d 208 (Clarke v. 158 St. & Riverside Drive Housing Co.) 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

Clarke v. 158 St. & Riverside Drive Housing Co., 245 A.D.2d 208, 665 N.Y.S.2d 898, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13324 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward Lehner, J.), entered September 30, 1996, which granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Summary judgment was properly granted in favor of defendant, an out-of-possession landlord having only a general right of reentry, where defendant established that neither structural failure nor specific statutory violation was involved (see, Raynor v 666 Fifth Ave. Ltd. Partnership, 232 AD2d 226). Plaintiff failed to produce evidence that defendant had notice of the defect or had entered into a covenant to be responsible therefor [209]*209(see, Hernandez v Neubert Realty Corp., 169 AD2d 645, 646). Concur—Ellerin, J. P., Nardelli, Williams, Andrias and Colabella, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward Lehner, J.), entered September 30, 1996, which granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Summary judgment was properly granted in favor of defendant, an out-of-possession landlord having only a general right of reentry, where defendant established that neither structural failure nor specific statutory violation was involved (see, Raynor v 666 Fifth Ave. Ltd. Partnership, 232 AD2d 226). Plaintiff failed to produce evidence that defendant had notice of the defect or had entered into a covenant to be responsible therefor [209]*209(see, Hernandez v Neubert Realty Corp., 169 AD2d 645, 646). Concur—Ellerin, J. P., Nardelli, Williams, Andrias and Colabella, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

245 A.D.2d 208, 665 N.Y.S.2d 898, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13324, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/clarke-v-158-st-riverside-drive-housing-co-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack