Mirkinson v. Stonehill Realty Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Mirkinson v. Stonehill Realty Corp.

53 A.D.3d 534, 859 N.Y.S.2d 873

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

DecidedJuly 8, 2008

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 53 A.D.3d 534 (Mirkinson v. Stonehill 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

Mirkinson v. Stonehill Realty Corp., 53 A.D.3d 534, 859 N.Y.S.2d 873 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Knipel, J.), dated September 5, 2007, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The defendant landlord failed to establish as a matter of law that an alleged defect in the installation of the hood over the stove in the plaintiff tenant’s apartment was not apparent at the time he inspected the premises and assumed ownership. Accordingly, its motion for summary judgment was properly denied (see Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851, 853 [1985]; Hayes v Riverbend Hous. Co., Inc., 40 AD3d 500 [2007]). Santucci, J.P., Angiolillo, Eng and Chambers, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Knipel, J.), dated September 5, 2007, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The defendant landlord failed to establish as a matter of law that an alleged defect in the installation of the hood over the stove in the plaintiff tenant’s apartment was not apparent at the time he inspected the premises and assumed ownership. Accordingly, its motion for summary judgment was properly denied (see Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851, 853 [1985]; Hayes v Riverbend Hous. Co., Inc., 40 AD3d 500 [2007]). Santucci, J.P., Angiolillo, Eng and Chambers, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

53 A.D.3d 534, 859 N.Y.S.2d 873, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mirkinson-v-stonehill-realty-corp-nyappdiv-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack