Hanlan v. Parkchester North Condominium, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Hanlan v. Parkchester North Condominium, Inc.

32 A.D.3d 799, 822 N.Y.S.2d 46

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

DecidedSeptember 28, 2006

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 32 A.D.3d 799 (Hanlan v. Parkchester North Condominium, Inc.) 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

Hanlan v. Parkchester North Condominium, Inc., 32 A.D.3d 799, 822 N.Y.S.2d 46 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Dianne T. Renwick, J.), entered August 5, 2005, which granted defendant Parkchester North Condominium’s motion and defendant Citibank’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendants having established, prima facie, their entitlement to summary judgment, it was incumbent on plaintiffs to come forward with evidence establishing a material issue of fact requiring a trial (see Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557 [1980]). Plaintiffs failed to meet that burden. Neither Citibank, the mortgagor of the condominium unit, nor Parkchester, the manager of the condominium complex, owned or controlled the premises at issue, or assumed any duty to plaintiffs, such as might serve as a predicate for liability (see Gibbs v Port Auth. of N.Y, 17 AD3d 252 [2005]). Furthermore, neither defendant had actual or constructive notice of the lead paint condition alleged to have caused injury (see Chapman v Silber, 97 NY2d 9 [2001]).

Even assuming, arguendo, the applicability of Local Law No. 1 of 1982 to a condominium complex and to these defendants, the infant plaintiff did not reside in the condominium unit at issue, but instead lived in a unit distinct from that in which the lead paint condition was found. There is no evidence that any child under seven was a resident of the subject unit (see Housing Maintenance Code [Administrative Code of City of NY] for[800]*800mer § 27-2013 [h], now §§ 27-2056.3, 27-2056.18). Concur— Mazzarelli, J.P., Andrias, Sullivan, Nardelli and McGuire, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Dianne T. Renwick, J.), entered August 5, 2005, which granted defendant Parkchester North Condominium’s motion and defendant Citibank’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendants having established, prima facie, their entitlement to summary judgment, it was incumbent on plaintiffs to come forward with evidence establishing a material issue of fact requiring a trial (see Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557 [1980]). Plaintiffs failed to meet that burden. Neither Citibank, the mortgagor of the condominium unit, nor Parkchester, the manager of the condominium complex, owned or controlled the premises at issue, or assumed any duty to plaintiffs, such as might serve as a predicate for liability (see Gibbs v Port Auth. of N.Y, 17 AD3d 252 [2005]). Furthermore, neither defendant had actual or constructive notice of the lead paint condition alleged to have caused injury (see Chapman v Silber, 97 NY2d 9 [2001]).

Even assuming, arguendo, the applicability of Local Law No. 1 of 1982 to a condominium complex and to these defendants, the infant plaintiff did not reside in the condominium unit at issue, but instead lived in a unit distinct from that in which the lead paint condition was found. There is no evidence that any child under seven was a resident of the subject unit (see Housing Maintenance Code [Administrative Code of City of NY] for[800]*800mer § 27-2013 [h], now §§ 27-2056.3, 27-2056.18). Concur— Mazzarelli, J.P., Andrias, Sullivan, Nardelli and McGuire, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

32 A.D.3d 799, 822 N.Y.S.2d 46, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hanlan-v-parkchester-north-condominium-inc-nyappdiv-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack