Dwellingham v. 125 Uptown Realty Associates

279 A.D.2d 261, 718 N.Y.S.2d 348, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12

This text of 279 A.D.2d 261 (Dwellingham v. 125 Uptown Realty 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
Dwellingham v. 125 Uptown Realty Associates, 279 A.D.2d 261, 718 N.Y.S.2d 348, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Franklin Weissberg, J.), entered on or about June 2, 2000, which, to the extent appealed from, denied defendant 125 Uptown Realty Associates’ motion for summary judgment dismissing plaintiffs complaint [262]*262and all cross claims against it, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

In view of defendant-appellant landlord’s contractual undertaking to repair the roof of its leased premises, its contention that the complaint should be dismissed as against it for lack of notice of the roof leak upon these premises that is alleged to have caused plaintiff’s harm, is without merit. Defendant-appellant may be charged with notice of the seven-month-old defect it contracted to remedy (see, Putnam v Stout, 38 NY2d 607, 617-618). Concur — Williams, J. P., Mazzarelli, Andrias, Lerner and Friedman, JJ.

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

Related

Putnam v. Stout
345 N.E.2d 319 (New York Court of Appeals, 1976)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
279 A.D.2d 261, 718 N.Y.S.2d 348, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dwellingham-v-125-uptown-realty-associates-nyappdiv-2001.