Pimentel v. Marx Realty & Improvement Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Pimentel v. Marx Realty & Improvement Co.

55 A.D.3d 480, 867 N.Y.S.2d 384

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

DecidedOctober 30, 2008

StatusPublished

This text of 55 A.D.3d 480 (Pimentel v. Marx Realty & Improvement Co.) 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

Pimentel v. Marx Realty & Improvement Co., 55 A.D.3d 480, 867 N.Y.S.2d 384 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Howard R. Silver, J.), entered on or about December 10, 2007, which denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendant, an out-of-possession landlord that reserved the right of reentry to inspect and make structural repairs, failed to demonstrate its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (Cortes v 1515 Williamsbridge Assoc., 295 AD2d 188 [2002]; see Guzman v Haven Plaza Hous. Dev. Fund Co., 69 NY2d 559, 565 [1987]). Plaintiffs evidence raised an issue of fact as to whether the lack of a handrail in the stairwell was a structural defect that violated a specific statutory provision, contributing to her fall. Concur—Lippman, PJ., Mazzarelli, Williams, Buckley and Renwick JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Howard R. Silver, J.), entered on or about December 10, 2007, which denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendant, an out-of-possession landlord that reserved the right of reentry to inspect and make structural repairs, failed to demonstrate its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (Cortes v 1515 Williamsbridge Assoc., 295 AD2d 188 [2002]; see Guzman v Haven Plaza Hous. Dev. Fund Co., 69 NY2d 559, 565 [1987]). Plaintiffs evidence raised an issue of fact as to whether the lack of a handrail in the stairwell was a structural defect that violated a specific statutory provision, contributing to her fall. Concur—Lippman, PJ., Mazzarelli, Williams, Buckley and Renwick JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

55 A.D.3d 480, 867 N.Y.S.2d 384, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pimentel-v-marx-realty-improvement-co-nyappdiv-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack