Imre v. Federal Insurance

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Imre v. Federal Insurance

220 A.D.2d 319, 632 N.Y.S.2d 562, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10399

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

DecidedOctober 24, 1995

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 220 A.D.2d 319 (Imre v. Federal Insurance) 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

Imre v. Federal Insurance, 220 A.D.2d 319, 632 N.Y.S.2d 562, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10399 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Alice Schlesinger, [320]*320J.), entered on or about January 11, 1995, which denied defendant-appellant’s motion for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Summary judgment was properly denied in view of the existence of triable issues of fact.

Plaintiff occupies a cooperative apartment in a building owned by defendant. She returned from vacation to find her living room filled with a cloud of steam, which had damaged or destroyed works of art and furniture. In opposition to defendant landlord’s motion for summary judgment, plaintiff submitted two affidavits from experienced art and furniture restorers that the damage was hot caused by normal atmospheric or weather conditions, and a report from an engineer who had inspected the premises pointing to a recently repaired living room radiator as the most probable cause of the damage. Plaintiff’s inability to locate the engineer in order to put his observations and conclusions in affidavit form was properly accepted by the court as a reasonable excuse for plaintiff’s failure to submit that proof in admissible form (see, Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562). Since the landlord’s repair of the heating system may have created the defect, proof of notice thereof to the landlord is not required at this juncture to avert dismissal. Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Rubin, Ross, Nardelli and Mazzarelli, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Alice Schlesinger, [320]*320J.), entered on or about January 11, 1995, which denied defendant-appellant’s motion for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Summary judgment was properly denied in view of the existence of triable issues of fact.

Plaintiff occupies a cooperative apartment in a building owned by defendant. She returned from vacation to find her living room filled with a cloud of steam, which had damaged or destroyed works of art and furniture. In opposition to defendant landlord’s motion for summary judgment, plaintiff submitted two affidavits from experienced art and furniture restorers that the damage was hot caused by normal atmospheric or weather conditions, and a report from an engineer who had inspected the premises pointing to a recently repaired living room radiator as the most probable cause of the damage. Plaintiff’s inability to locate the engineer in order to put his observations and conclusions in affidavit form was properly accepted by the court as a reasonable excuse for plaintiff’s failure to submit that proof in admissible form (see, Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562). Since the landlord’s repair of the heating system may have created the defect, proof of notice thereof to the landlord is not required at this juncture to avert dismissal. Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Rubin, Ross, Nardelli and Mazzarelli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

220 A.D.2d 319, 632 N.Y.S.2d 562, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10399, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/imre-v-federal-insurance-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack