Dutan v. Des Bel Realty Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Dutan v. Des Bel Realty Corp.

202 A.D.2d 550, 610 N.Y.S.2d 819, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2654

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

DecidedMarch 21, 1994

StatusPublished

This text of 202 A.D.2d 550 (Dutan v. Des Bel Realty Corp.) 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

Dutan v. Des Bel Realty Corp., 202 A.D.2d 550, 610 N.Y.S.2d 819, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2654 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to [551]*551recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Rutledge, J.), dated June 5,1992, which granted the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the plaintiffs’ motion is denied.

We find that the defendant has raised triable issues of fact with regard to whether it was in compliance with the Window Guard Law (New York City Health Code [9 RCNY] § 131.15), notwithstanding the defendant’s failure to install window guards in the plaintiffs’ apartment (see, Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557), and whether such a violation, if any, constituted negligence on the part of the defendant (see, Alharb v Sayegh, 199 AD2d 229). Thompson, J. P., Santucci, Friedmann and Florio, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action to [551]*551recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Rutledge, J.), dated June 5,1992, which granted the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the plaintiffs’ motion is denied.

We find that the defendant has raised triable issues of fact with regard to whether it was in compliance with the Window Guard Law (New York City Health Code [9 RCNY] § 131.15), notwithstanding the defendant’s failure to install window guards in the plaintiffs’ apartment (see, Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557), and whether such a violation, if any, constituted negligence on the part of the defendant (see, Alharb v Sayegh, 199 AD2d 229). Thompson, J. P., Santucci, Friedmann and Florio, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

202 A.D.2d 550, 610 N.Y.S.2d 819, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2654, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dutan-v-des-bel-realty-corp-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack