Davis v. New York City Housing Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Davis v. New York City Housing Authority

272 A.D.2d 365, 707 N.Y.S.2d 212, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5079

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided May 8, 2000·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Rappaport, J.), dated January 29, 1999, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

A defendant, as an out-of-possession owner, may be liable for violation of certain provisions of the Administrative Code of the City of New York, where, as here, it retained a right to reenter (see, Guzman v Haven Plaza Hous. Dev. Fund Co., 69 NY2d 559). Here, however, the defendant established that the violations in question were not a proximate cause of the [366]*366plaintiffs injuries. As the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact in that regard, the defendant’s motion for summary judgment was properly granted (see, Hotzoglou v Hotzoglou, 221 AD2d 594; Portilla v Rodriguez, 179 AD2d 631). Santucci, J. P., Friedmann, McGinity and Smith, 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 personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Rappaport, J.), dated January 29, 1999, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

A defendant, as an out-of-possession owner, may be liable for violation of certain provisions of the Administrative Code of the City of New York, where, as here, it retained a right to reenter (see, Guzman v Haven Plaza Hous. Dev. Fund Co., 69 NY2d 559). Here, however, the defendant established that the violations in question were not a proximate cause of the [366]*366plaintiffs injuries. As the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact in that regard, the defendant’s motion for summary judgment was properly granted (see, Hotzoglou v Hotzoglou, 221 AD2d 594; Portilla v Rodriguez, 179 AD2d 631). Santucci, J. P., Friedmann, McGinity and Smith, JJ., concur.

Davis v. New York City Housing Authority, 272 A.D.2d 365, 707 N.Y.S.2d 212, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5079 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

272 A.D.2d 365 (Davis v. New York City Housing Authority) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related