Munoz v. 42 Holding Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Munoz v. 42 Holding Corp.

30 A.D.3d 361, 817 N.Y.S.2d 286

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

DecidedJune 29, 2006

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 30 A.D.3d 361 (Munoz v. 42 Holding 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

Munoz v. 42 Holding Corp., 30 A.D.3d 361, 817 N.Y.S.2d 286 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Dianne T. Renwick, J.), entered December 9, 2005, which denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendant met its prima facie burden of establishing lack of notice that a child no more than seven years of age resided in the subject apartment. However, based on multiple repairs al[362]*362legedly made in the apartment by the superintendent, and the fact that plaintiff and the superintendent lived on the same floor, plaintiff raised material issues of fact as to whether defendant had constructive notice that such a child lived in the apartment (see Woolfalk v New York City Hous., Auth., 263 AD2d 355 [1999]; cf. Juarez v Wavecrest Mgt. Team, 88 NY2d 628 [1996]).

We have considered defendant’s other arguments and find them unavailing. Concur—Sullivan, J.P., Williams, Catterson and McGuire, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Dianne T. Renwick, J.), entered December 9, 2005, which denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendant met its prima facie burden of establishing lack of notice that a child no more than seven years of age resided in the subject apartment. However, based on multiple repairs al[362]*362legedly made in the apartment by the superintendent, and the fact that plaintiff and the superintendent lived on the same floor, plaintiff raised material issues of fact as to whether defendant had constructive notice that such a child lived in the apartment (see Woolfalk v New York City Hous., Auth., 263 AD2d 355 [1999]; cf. Juarez v Wavecrest Mgt. Team, 88 NY2d 628 [1996]).

We have considered defendant’s other arguments and find them unavailing. Concur—Sullivan, J.P., Williams, Catterson and McGuire, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

30 A.D.3d 361, 817 N.Y.S.2d 286, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/munoz-v-42-holding-corp-nyappdiv-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack