Dimas v. 160 Water Street Associates

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Dimas v. 160 Water Street Associates

191 A.D.2d 290, 594 N.Y.S.2d 262

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

DecidedMarch 16, 1993

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 191 A.D.2d 290 (Dimas v. 160 Water Street Associates) 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

Dimas v. 160 Water Street Associates, 191 A.D.2d 290, 594 N.Y.S.2d 262 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Shirley Fingerhood, J.), entered on or about January 27, 1992, which denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Although the lease in question appears to require the tenant to maintain and repair the lighting fixtures in its portion of the building, the record contains evidence of a course of conduct tending to show that the landlord sometimes assumed control of such maintenance and repair, and which raises an issue of fact as to who was responsible for the maintenance and repair of the lighting fixture (see, Ritto v Goldberg, 27 NY2d 887; Elston v FCO Auto Racing, 161 AD2d 561, lv dismissed 76 NY2d 888). Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Carro, Wallach and Kupferman, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Shirley Fingerhood, J.), entered on or about January 27, 1992, which denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Although the lease in question appears to require the tenant to maintain and repair the lighting fixtures in its portion of the building, the record contains evidence of a course of conduct tending to show that the landlord sometimes assumed control of such maintenance and repair, and which raises an issue of fact as to who was responsible for the maintenance and repair of the lighting fixture (see, Ritto v Goldberg, 27 NY2d 887; Elston v FCO Auto Racing, 161 AD2d 561, lv dismissed 76 NY2d 888). Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Carro, Wallach and Kupferman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

191 A.D.2d 290, 594 N.Y.S.2d 262, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dimas-v-160-water-street-associates-nyappdiv-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack