Oliver v. 144th Street Johanna Associates

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Oliver v. 144th Street Johanna Associates

273 A.D.2d 156, 710 N.Y.S.2d 334, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7509

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

DecidedJune 27, 2000

StatusPublished

This text of 273 A.D.2d 156 (Oliver v. 144th Street Johanna Associates) 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

Oliver v. 144th Street Johanna Associates, 273 A.D.2d 156, 710 N.Y.S.2d 334, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7509 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard Lowe, III, J.), entered on or about February 2, 2000, which, in an action for personal injuries sustained when a stove exploded in an apartment in a building owned by defendant, denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against it, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The deposition testimony of defendant’s building manager, that he did not know if any repairs had been made to the stove within the five-year period prior to the accident, raises issues of fact as to whether defendant had properly performed its claimed annual inspections of the apartment, whether the stove [157]*157was defective, and, if so, whether the defect had existed for a sufficient length of time for defendant to have discovered and remedied it and whether it caused the accident (see, Guzman v Haven Plaza Hous. Dev. Fund Co., 69 NY2d 559, 565-566; Batton v Elghanayan, 43 NY2d 898). We note that, at least for present purposes, defendant appears to concede that its retention of the right to enter the subject apartment for the purpose of inspection and repair encompassed a duty to inspect and repair the stove. Concur — Ellerin, J. P., Rubin, Saxe and Buckley, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard Lowe, III, J.), entered on or about February 2, 2000, which, in an action for personal injuries sustained when a stove exploded in an apartment in a building owned by defendant, denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against it, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The deposition testimony of defendant’s building manager, that he did not know if any repairs had been made to the stove within the five-year period prior to the accident, raises issues of fact as to whether defendant had properly performed its claimed annual inspections of the apartment, whether the stove [157]*157was defective, and, if so, whether the defect had existed for a sufficient length of time for defendant to have discovered and remedied it and whether it caused the accident (see, Guzman v Haven Plaza Hous. Dev. Fund Co., 69 NY2d 559, 565-566; Batton v Elghanayan, 43 NY2d 898). We note that, at least for present purposes, defendant appears to concede that its retention of the right to enter the subject apartment for the purpose of inspection and repair encompassed a duty to inspect and repair the stove. Concur — Ellerin, J. P., Rubin, Saxe and Buckley, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

273 A.D.2d 156, 710 N.Y.S.2d 334, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7509, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/oliver-v-144th-street-johanna-associates-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack