Gomez v. Gagne

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Gomez v. Gagne

236 A.D.2d 589, 654 N.Y.S.2d 683, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1562

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

DecidedFebruary 24, 1997

StatusPublished

This text of 236 A.D.2d 589 (Gomez v. Gagne) 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

Gomez v. Gagne, 236 A.D.2d 589, 654 N.Y.S.2d 683, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1562 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Jackson, J.), dated February 13, 1996, which, upon the plaintiffs’ motion, among other things, to direct the City of New York to inspect the plaintiffs’ apartment for lead-based paint violations, dismissed the complaint on the ground that the Housing Part of the New York City Civil Court had jurisdiction to determine the action.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for further proceedings, including a determination of the plaintiffs’ motion.

Inasmuch as the Housing Part of the New York City Civil Court is not competent to hear the various tort and breach of contract causes of action asserted in the plaintiffs’ complaint, the instant action in the Supreme Court should not have been dismissed (see, CCA 110; 3054 Godwin Terrace Realty Co. v Armstrong, 190 AD2d 617). Mangano, P. J., Ritter, Sullivan, Altman and McGinity, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Jackson, J.), dated February 13, 1996, which, upon the plaintiffs’ motion, among other things, to direct the City of New York to inspect the plaintiffs’ apartment for lead-based paint violations, dismissed the complaint on the ground that the Housing Part of the New York City Civil Court had jurisdiction to determine the action.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for further proceedings, including a determination of the plaintiffs’ motion.

Inasmuch as the Housing Part of the New York City Civil Court is not competent to hear the various tort and breach of contract causes of action asserted in the plaintiffs’ complaint, the instant action in the Supreme Court should not have been dismissed (see, CCA 110; 3054 Godwin Terrace Realty Co. v Armstrong, 190 AD2d 617). Mangano, P. J., Ritter, Sullivan, Altman and McGinity, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

236 A.D.2d 589, 654 N.Y.S.2d 683, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1562, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gomez-v-gagne-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack