Najera v. King David Development Co., L.P.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Najera v. King David Development Co., L.P.

72 A.D.3d 594, 899 N.Y.S.2d 231

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

DecidedApril 27, 2010

StatusPublished

This text of 72 A.D.3d 594 (Najera v. King David Development Co., L.P.) 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

Najera v. King David Development Co., L.P., 72 A.D.3d 594, 899 N.Y.S.2d 231 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Michael D. Stallman, J.), entered December 10, 2009, which, in an action by a waiter against an out-of-possession landlord for personal injuries caused by a defective dumbwaiter, denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion granted. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment in favor of defendant.

Summary judgment should have been granted in favor of defendant because, under its lease with plaintiff’s employer, it did not reserve the right to repair or maintain the dumbwaiter (see Lopez v 1372 Shakespeare Ave. Hous. Dev. Fund Corp., 299 AD2d 230, 231 [2002]). While defendant did reserve the right to reenter to make repairs to “pipes, ducts, cables, conduits, plumbing, vents and wires” to the extent it deemed necessary “for the proper operation and maintenance of the building,” there is no showing that the dumbwaiter affected the operation and maintenance of the building. We would add that Administrative Code of City of NY § 27-998 (a), relied on by plaintiff, sets forth inspection and testing interval requirements that, to the extent applicable to dumbwaiters (see Administrative Code §§ 27-982, 27-998 [e] [all other devices not specifically mentioned shall be inspected “at such intervals as the commissioner may require”]), do not implicate a significant structural or design defect (see Nameny v East N.Y. Sav. Bank, 267 AD2d 108, 109 [1999]). Concur—Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Andrias, Saxe and DeGrasse, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Michael D. Stallman, J.), entered December 10, 2009, which, in an action by a waiter against an out-of-possession landlord for personal injuries caused by a defective dumbwaiter, denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion granted. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment in favor of defendant.

Summary judgment should have been granted in favor of defendant because, under its lease with plaintiff’s employer, it did not reserve the right to repair or maintain the dumbwaiter (see Lopez v 1372 Shakespeare Ave. Hous. Dev. Fund Corp., 299 AD2d 230, 231 [2002]). While defendant did reserve the right to reenter to make repairs to “pipes, ducts, cables, conduits, plumbing, vents and wires” to the extent it deemed necessary “for the proper operation and maintenance of the building,” there is no showing that the dumbwaiter affected the operation and maintenance of the building. We would add that Administrative Code of City of NY § 27-998 (a), relied on by plaintiff, sets forth inspection and testing interval requirements that, to the extent applicable to dumbwaiters (see Administrative Code §§ 27-982, 27-998 [e] [all other devices not specifically mentioned shall be inspected “at such intervals as the commissioner may require”]), do not implicate a significant structural or design defect (see Nameny v East N.Y. Sav. Bank, 267 AD2d 108, 109 [1999]). Concur—Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Andrias, Saxe and DeGrasse, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

72 A.D.3d 594, 899 N.Y.S.2d 231, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/najera-v-king-david-development-co-lp-nyappdiv-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack