Sixty East End Owners, Inc. v. Perlbinder

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Sixty East End Owners, Inc. v. Perlbinder

97 A.D.2d 702, 468 N.Y.S.2d 569, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 20403

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

DecidedNovember 3, 1983

StatusPublished

This text of 97 A.D.2d 702 (Sixty East End Owners, Inc. v. Perlbinder) 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

Sixty East End Owners, Inc. v. Perlbinder, 97 A.D.2d 702, 468 N.Y.S.2d 569, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 20403 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1983).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Hortense W. Gabel, J.), entered October 1, 1982, granting the motions of various third-party defendants for an order dismissing the third-party complaint, modified, on the law, without costs, to deny the motion to dismiss the first and second causes of action, and otherwise affirmed. We agree with Special Term’s order to the extent to which it granted the motion to dismiss the third and fourth causes of action in the third-party complaint, and for the reasons stated by Special Term. However, the grounds assigned in Special Term’s opinion dismissing these causes of action appear to have no application to the first and second causes of action, the first alleging in general terms a breach of the warranty of habitability, and the second alleging various forms of damage alleged to have resulted from that supposed breach. These causes of action, the merits of which were not addressed by any party to the appeal, appear to be legally sufficient. Concur — Kupferman, J. P., Sandler, Sullivan, Bloom and Alexandér, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Hortense W. Gabel, J.), entered October 1, 1982, granting the motions of various third-party defendants for an order dismissing the third-party complaint, modified, on the law, without costs, to deny the motion to dismiss the first and second causes of action, and otherwise affirmed. We agree with Special Term’s order to the extent to which it granted the motion to dismiss the third and fourth causes of action in the third-party complaint, and for the reasons stated by Special Term. However, the grounds assigned in Special Term’s opinion dismissing these causes of action appear to have no application to the first and second causes of action, the first alleging in general terms a breach of the warranty of habitability, and the second alleging various forms of damage alleged to have resulted from that supposed breach. These causes of action, the merits of which were not addressed by any party to the appeal, appear to be legally sufficient. Concur — Kupferman, J. P., Sandler, Sullivan, Bloom and Alexandér, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

97 A.D.2d 702, 468 N.Y.S.2d 569, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 20403, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sixty-east-end-owners-inc-v-perlbinder-nyappdiv-1983.