Petties v. New York City Housing Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Petties v. New York City Housing Authority

36 A.D.3d 882, 827 N.Y.S.2d 664

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

DecidedJanuary 30, 2007

StatusPublished

This text of 36 A.D.3d 882 (Petties v. New York City Housing Authority) 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

Petties v. New York City Housing Authority, 36 A.D.3d 882, 827 N.Y.S.2d 664 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for failure to maintain and repair the plaintiff’s apartment and failure to timely renew his lease, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Schulman, J.), dated June 3, 2005, which, inter alia, denied his motion, in effect, to vacate an order of the same court (Dye J.), dated June 10, 2003, granting the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The Supreme Court properly denied the plaintiffs motion, in effect, to vacate the order granting the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint (see generally CPLR 5015 [a]).

The plaintiff’s remaining contentions are without merit. Schmidt, J.E, Mastro, Santucci and Fisher, JJ., concur.

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

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for failure to maintain and repair the plaintiff’s apartment and failure to timely renew his lease, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Schulman, J.), dated June 3, 2005, which, inter alia, denied his motion, in effect, to vacate an order of the same court (Dye J.), dated June 10, 2003, granting the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The Supreme Court properly denied the plaintiffs motion, in effect, to vacate the order granting the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint (see generally CPLR 5015 [a]).

The plaintiff’s remaining contentions are without merit. Schmidt, J.E, Mastro, Santucci and Fisher, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

36 A.D.3d 882, 827 N.Y.S.2d 664, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/petties-v-new-york-city-housing-authority-nyappdiv-2007.