Kopsachilis v. 130 East 18 Owners Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Kopsachilis v. 130 East 18 Owners Corp.

43 A.D.3d 744, 841 N.Y.S.2d 449

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

DecidedSeptember 20, 2007

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 43 A.D.3d 744 (Kopsachilis v. 130 East 18 Owners 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

Kopsachilis v. 130 East 18 Owners Corp., 43 A.D.3d 744, 841 N.Y.S.2d 449 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinions

[745]*745Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Emily Jane Goodman, J.), entered May 30, 2006, which, inter alia, denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff allegedly sustained injuries when she attempted to descend a darkened interior staircase in defendants’ building during a blackout. In view of triable issues as to whether defendants took appropriate measures to maintain the building’s emergency stairwell lighting, summary judgment was properly denied (see Goldstein v Consolidated Edison Co. of N.Y., 115 AD2d 34, 40 [1986], lv denied 68 NY2d 604 [1986]). Contrary to defendant owner’s argument its obligation to light the staircase at issue is not governed by Multiple Dwelling Law § 37 (2), but by Multiple Dwelling Law § 37 (3), which does not relieve an owner of responsibility for lights extinguished without its knowledge or consent, but rather commands categorically that every light in a windowless fire-stair “shall be kept burning continuously.”

We have reviewed defendants’ remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur—Tom, J.P, Williams and Gonzalez, JJ.

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

[745]*745Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Emily Jane Goodman, J.), entered May 30, 2006, which, inter alia, denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff allegedly sustained injuries when she attempted to descend a darkened interior staircase in defendants’ building during a blackout. In view of triable issues as to whether defendants took appropriate measures to maintain the building’s emergency stairwell lighting, summary judgment was properly denied (see Goldstein v Consolidated Edison Co. of N.Y., 115 AD2d 34, 40 [1986], lv denied 68 NY2d 604 [1986]). Contrary to defendant owner’s argument its obligation to light the staircase at issue is not governed by Multiple Dwelling Law § 37 (2), but by Multiple Dwelling Law § 37 (3), which does not relieve an owner of responsibility for lights extinguished without its knowledge or consent, but rather commands categorically that every light in a windowless fire-stair “shall be kept burning continuously.”

We have reviewed defendants’ remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur—Tom, J.P, Williams and Gonzalez, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

43 A.D.3d 744, 841 N.Y.S.2d 449, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kopsachilis-v-130-east-18-owners-corp-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack