Spinale v. 10 West 66th Street Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Spinale v. 10 West 66th Street Corp.

232 A.D.2d 317, 648 N.Y.S.2d 105, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10573

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

DecidedOctober 29, 1996

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 232 A.D.2d 317 (Spinale v. 10 West 66th Street Corp.) 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

Spinale v. 10 West 66th Street Corp., 232 A.D.2d 317, 648 N.Y.S.2d 105, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10573 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol Huff, J.), entered February 7, 1996, which granted plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the claim of defendant predicated on a breach of the proprietary lease prohibition of unreasonable noise, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Defendant-appellant made no competent showing of continuous noise (see, Stiglianese v Vallone, 168 Misc 2d 446, 456-457) "of a type or volume that a reasonable person, under the circumstances, would not tolerate” (People v Bakolas, 59 NY2d 51, 53). There was no evidentiary proof of unusual noises other than those normally emanating from an apartment, such as persons walking. Conclusory descriptions of these standard apartment noises as "loud” were insufficient to raise a question of fact.

We have considered appellant’s remaining arguments and find them to be without merit. Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Ellerin, Ross, Nardelli and Mazzarelli, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol Huff, J.), entered February 7, 1996, which granted plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the claim of defendant predicated on a breach of the proprietary lease prohibition of unreasonable noise, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Defendant-appellant made no competent showing of continuous noise (see, Stiglianese v Vallone, 168 Misc 2d 446, 456-457) "of a type or volume that a reasonable person, under the circumstances, would not tolerate” (People v Bakolas, 59 NY2d 51, 53). There was no evidentiary proof of unusual noises other than those normally emanating from an apartment, such as persons walking. Conclusory descriptions of these standard apartment noises as "loud” were insufficient to raise a question of fact.

We have considered appellant’s remaining arguments and find them to be without merit. Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Ellerin, Ross, Nardelli and Mazzarelli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

232 A.D.2d 317, 648 N.Y.S.2d 105, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10573, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/spinale-v-10-west-66th-street-corp-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack