Lichter v. 349 Amsterdam Avenue Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Lichter v. 349 Amsterdam Avenue Corp.

8 A.D.3d 212, 780 N.Y.S.2d 4, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8924

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

DecidedJune 29, 2004

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 8 A.D.3d 212 (Lichter v. 349 Amsterdam Avenue 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

Lichter v. 349 Amsterdam Avenue Corp., 8 A.D.3d 212, 780 N.Y.S.2d 4, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8924 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Joan A. Madden, J.), entered November 18, 2003, which granted plaintiffs motion for summary judgment, denied defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment and for dismissal of the complaint on unspecified grounds, and directed an inquest as to damages, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

There are no factual issues with respect to defendant’s responsibility to maintain its chimney. Any responsibility that plaintiff may have had at one time, pursuant to section 27-860 of the Administrative Code of the City of New York, as the neighboring owner of a taller, later-built building, was extinguished in or about 1947, when defendant discontinued the use of the chimney, and was not reactivated when such use was resumed almost 40 years later. Defendant failed to establish that this action was time-barred (Savarese v Shatz, 273 AD2d 219 [2000]). In any event, the cause of action for nuisance is timely under the doctrine of continuing tort (CELR 214 [4]; Dabb v NYNEX Corp., 262 AD2d 1079 [1999]).

We have considered defendant’s remaining contentions and find them unavailing. Concur—Nardelli, J.P., Mazzarelli, Sullivan, Lerner and Friedman, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Joan A. Madden, J.), entered November 18, 2003, which granted plaintiffs motion for summary judgment, denied defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment and for dismissal of the complaint on unspecified grounds, and directed an inquest as to damages, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

There are no factual issues with respect to defendant’s responsibility to maintain its chimney. Any responsibility that plaintiff may have had at one time, pursuant to section 27-860 of the Administrative Code of the City of New York, as the neighboring owner of a taller, later-built building, was extinguished in or about 1947, when defendant discontinued the use of the chimney, and was not reactivated when such use was resumed almost 40 years later. Defendant failed to establish that this action was time-barred (Savarese v Shatz, 273 AD2d 219 [2000]). In any event, the cause of action for nuisance is timely under the doctrine of continuing tort (CELR 214 [4]; Dabb v NYNEX Corp., 262 AD2d 1079 [1999]).

We have considered defendant’s remaining contentions and find them unavailing. Concur—Nardelli, J.P., Mazzarelli, Sullivan, Lerner and Friedman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

8 A.D.3d 212, 780 N.Y.S.2d 4, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8924, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lichter-v-349-amsterdam-avenue-corp-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack