Ramirez v. 101465 Realty, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ramirez v. 101465 Realty, Inc.

39 A.D.3d 236, 831 N.Y.S.2d 704

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

DecidedApril 3, 2007

StatusPublished

This text of 39 A.D.3d 236 (Ramirez v. 101465 Realty, Inc.) 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

Ramirez v. 101465 Realty, Inc., 39 A.D.3d 236, 831 N.Y.S.2d 704 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Leland DeGrasse, J.), entered October 24, 2006, which denied defendant 101465 Realty, Inc.’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The relevant leases reserve to defendant landlord 101465 Realty, Inc. the right to reenter the demised premises for the purpose of inspection and repair. That reservation together with the circumstance that the summary judgment movant’s evidence did not disprove plaintiffs allegation that the premises stairwell where he fell had significant structural or design defects in violation of the New York City Building Code, dictated the motion’s denial (see Kraus v Caliche Realty Estates, 289 AD2d 9 [2001]). Concur—Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Sullivan, Nardelli 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 (Leland DeGrasse, J.), entered October 24, 2006, which denied defendant 101465 Realty, Inc.’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The relevant leases reserve to defendant landlord 101465 Realty, Inc. the right to reenter the demised premises for the purpose of inspection and repair. That reservation together with the circumstance that the summary judgment movant’s evidence did not disprove plaintiffs allegation that the premises stairwell where he fell had significant structural or design defects in violation of the New York City Building Code, dictated the motion’s denial (see Kraus v Caliche Realty Estates, 289 AD2d 9 [2001]). Concur—Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Sullivan, Nardelli and Buckley, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

39 A.D.3d 236, 831 N.Y.S.2d 704, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ramirez-v-101465-realty-inc-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack