Escobar v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Escobar v. City of New York

248 A.D.2d 667, 670 N.Y.S.2d 322

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

DecidedMarch 30, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 248 A.D.2d 667 (Escobar v. City of New York) 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

Escobar v. City of New York, 248 A.D.2d 667, 670 N.Y.S.2d 322 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—In related actions, inter alia, to recover damages for wrongful death, the New York City Industrial Development Agency, a defendant in Action No. 2, appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Polizzi, J.), dated February 10, 1997, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint in Action No. 2 insofar as asserted against it.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Where, as here, the plaintiff has pleaded violations of specific provisions of the Administrative Code of the City of New York, the reservation in a lease of a general right to enter and inspect the premises may subject an out-of-possession property owner to liability (see, Guzman v Haven Plaza Hous. Dev. Fund Co., 69 NY2d 559; Dufficy v Wharf Bar & Grill, 217 AD2d 646). Consequently, the appellant’s motion for summary judgment was properly denied.

Bracken, J. P., O’Brien, Copertino and Pizzuto, JJ., concur.

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

—In related actions, inter alia, to recover damages for wrongful death, the New York City Industrial Development Agency, a defendant in Action No. 2, appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Polizzi, J.), dated February 10, 1997, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint in Action No. 2 insofar as asserted against it.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Where, as here, the plaintiff has pleaded violations of specific provisions of the Administrative Code of the City of New York, the reservation in a lease of a general right to enter and inspect the premises may subject an out-of-possession property owner to liability (see, Guzman v Haven Plaza Hous. Dev. Fund Co., 69 NY2d 559; Dufficy v Wharf Bar & Grill, 217 AD2d 646). Consequently, the appellant’s motion for summary judgment was properly denied.

Bracken, J. P., O’Brien, Copertino and Pizzuto, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

248 A.D.2d 667, 670 N.Y.S.2d 322, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/escobar-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack