Postell v. Budhu

278 A.D.2d 107, 718 N.Y.S.2d 170, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13974

This text of 278 A.D.2d 107 (Postell v. Budhu) 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
Postell v. Budhu, 278 A.D.2d 107, 718 N.Y.S.2d 170, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13974 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Michael DeMarco, J.), entered on or about May 23, 2000, which denied the motion of defendants Ramjatan and Eesardeen Budhu for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against them, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Supreme Court properly denied the Budhu defendants’ motion for summary judgment since issues of fact exist with respect to whether they breached their contractual obligations to keep the premises in good repair (see, Putnam v Stout, 38 NY2d 607; and see, Russo v 491 W. St. Corp., 176 AD2d 672) and whether they had notice of the alleged hazardous condition and a reasonable opportunity to repair it (see, Juarez v Wavecrest Mgt. Team, 88 NY2d 628, 642; and see, Espinal v 570 W. 156th Assocs., 258 AD2d 309). Concur — Nardelli, J. P., Tom, Lerner, Buckley and Friedman, JJ.

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

Related

Juarez v. Wavecrest Management Team Ltd.
672 N.E.2d 135 (New York Court of Appeals, 1996)
Putnam v. Stout
345 N.E.2d 319 (New York Court of Appeals, 1976)
Russo v. 491 West Street Corp.
176 A.D.2d 672 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1991)
In re Hsu
258 A.D.2d 309 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1999)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
278 A.D.2d 107, 718 N.Y.S.2d 170, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13974, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/postell-v-budhu-nyappdiv-2000.