Ramirez v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ramirez v. City of New York

13 A.D.3d 248, 787 N.Y.S.2d 259, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15482

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

DecidedDecember 21, 2004

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 13 A.D.3d 248 (Ramirez v. City of New York) 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. City of New York, 13 A.D.3d 248, 787 N.Y.S.2d 259, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15482 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Betty Owen Stinson, J), entered on or about April 10, 2003, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the brief, granted the cross motion of defendant Fordham Bedford Housing Corporation (Fordham) for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against it, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Appeal from order, same court and Justice, entered September 11, 2003, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as abandoned.

The City owned and the Tenants’ Association leased the building in which plaintiff allegedly contracted lead poisoning during a lead paint abatement project. Although the Tenants’ Association had hired Fordham to assist in the building’s management, it is undisputed that the Tenants’ Association, not Fordham, had the power to recommend repairs to the City, and that it was the City’s prerogative to authorize them. Inasmuch as Fordham did not in its capacity as managing agent have complete and exclusive control over the allegedly injurious abatement project, it is not liable for plaintiffs harm (see German v Bronx United in Leveraging Dollars, Inc., 258 AD2d 251 [1999]). Concur— Nardelli, J.P., Mazzarelli, Lerner, Friedman and Marlow, JJ. [See 2003 NY Slip Op 50950(U).]

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

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Betty Owen Stinson, J), entered on or about April 10, 2003, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the brief, granted the cross motion of defendant Fordham Bedford Housing Corporation (Fordham) for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against it, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Appeal from order, same court and Justice, entered September 11, 2003, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as abandoned.

The City owned and the Tenants’ Association leased the building in which plaintiff allegedly contracted lead poisoning during a lead paint abatement project. Although the Tenants’ Association had hired Fordham to assist in the building’s management, it is undisputed that the Tenants’ Association, not Fordham, had the power to recommend repairs to the City, and that it was the City’s prerogative to authorize them. Inasmuch as Fordham did not in its capacity as managing agent have complete and exclusive control over the allegedly injurious abatement project, it is not liable for plaintiffs harm (see German v Bronx United in Leveraging Dollars, Inc., 258 AD2d 251 [1999]). Concur— Nardelli, J.P., Mazzarelli, Lerner, Friedman and Marlow, JJ. [See 2003 NY Slip Op 50950(U).]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

13 A.D.3d 248, 787 N.Y.S.2d 259, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15482, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ramirez-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack