Holm v. Bayis Realty Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Holm v. Bayis Realty Corp.

16 A.D.3d 139, 791 N.Y.S.2d 23, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2197

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

DecidedMarch 3, 2005

StatusPublished

This text of 16 A.D.3d 139 (Holm v. Bayis 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

Holm v. Bayis Realty Corp., 16 A.D.3d 139, 791 N.Y.S.2d 23, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2197 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Sheila AbdusSalaam, J.), entered on or about December 4, 2003, which denied plaintiffs motion for summary judgment and granted defendant Bayis Realty’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously modified, on the law, said defendant’s cross motion denied and the complaint reinstated, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff terminated a real estate agreement, involving his purchase of a residential multiple dwelling, on the ground that building records indicated an open “rent impairing” violation dating back to 1990, namely, a defective fire escape. The agreement permitted the purchaser to terminate the contract for such a violation. Defendant seller, acknowledging that the records of the Department of Housing Preservation and Development (HPD) showed an “open” rent-impairing “C” violation on the premises, contended nonetheless that those records also indicated correction of the violation certified in 1990.

Issues of fact remain with respect to the continued existence of this violation. Defendant seller concedes that it never paid the $300 fee to have the violation removed from HPD’s records, and that it failed to submit an actual certificate of compliance to establish that the violation was corrected. Inasmuch as the parties disputed the meaning of the heading “Owner Certification Dates” in relevant HPD records, as well as the meaning of subsequent HPD inspection findings in connection with the subject premises, the motion court impermissibly engaged in issue determination rather than issue finding when it adopted Bayis Realty’s arguments. Concur—Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Marlow, Nardelli and Catterson, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Sheila AbdusSalaam, J.), entered on or about December 4, 2003, which denied plaintiffs motion for summary judgment and granted defendant Bayis Realty’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously modified, on the law, said defendant’s cross motion denied and the complaint reinstated, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff terminated a real estate agreement, involving his purchase of a residential multiple dwelling, on the ground that building records indicated an open “rent impairing” violation dating back to 1990, namely, a defective fire escape. The agreement permitted the purchaser to terminate the contract for such a violation. Defendant seller, acknowledging that the records of the Department of Housing Preservation and Development (HPD) showed an “open” rent-impairing “C” violation on the premises, contended nonetheless that those records also indicated correction of the violation certified in 1990.

Issues of fact remain with respect to the continued existence of this violation. Defendant seller concedes that it never paid the $300 fee to have the violation removed from HPD’s records, and that it failed to submit an actual certificate of compliance to establish that the violation was corrected. Inasmuch as the parties disputed the meaning of the heading “Owner Certification Dates” in relevant HPD records, as well as the meaning of subsequent HPD inspection findings in connection with the subject premises, the motion court impermissibly engaged in issue determination rather than issue finding when it adopted Bayis Realty’s arguments. Concur—Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Marlow, Nardelli and Catterson, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

16 A.D.3d 139, 791 N.Y.S.2d 23, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2197, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/holm-v-bayis-realty-corp-nyappdiv-2005.