Suriel v. New York City Housing Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Suriel v. New York City Housing Authority

294 A.D.2d 101, 740 N.Y.S.2d 866, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4365

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

DecidedMay 2, 2002

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 294 A.D.2d 101 (Suriel v. New York City Housing Authority) 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

Suriel v. New York City Housing Authority, 294 A.D.2d 101, 740 N.Y.S.2d 866, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4365 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Michael Stallman, J.), entered on or about April 13, 2001, which denied plaintiffs motion to vacate an underlying default pursuant to CPLR 5015 and to restore the matter to active status, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

In this action in which plaintiff allegedly was bitten by a dog owned by a tenant, we agree with the motion court that the complaint, as pleaded, evinces no meritorious cause of action against the landlord, specifically as to whether the landlord knew of the dog’s presence and had notice of its vicious [102]*102propensities (Carter v Metro N. Assoc., 255 AD2d 251; Rivers v New York City Hous. Auth., 264 AD2d 342; LePore v DiCarlo, 272 AD2d 878, lv denied 95 NY2d 761; Yeostros v Jackson, 258 AD2d 886). Concur—Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Rosenberger, Wallach and Marlow, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Michael Stallman, J.), entered on or about April 13, 2001, which denied plaintiffs motion to vacate an underlying default pursuant to CPLR 5015 and to restore the matter to active status, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

In this action in which plaintiff allegedly was bitten by a dog owned by a tenant, we agree with the motion court that the complaint, as pleaded, evinces no meritorious cause of action against the landlord, specifically as to whether the landlord knew of the dog’s presence and had notice of its vicious [102]*102propensities (Carter v Metro N. Assoc., 255 AD2d 251; Rivers v New York City Hous. Auth., 264 AD2d 342; LePore v DiCarlo, 272 AD2d 878, lv denied 95 NY2d 761; Yeostros v Jackson, 258 AD2d 886). Concur—Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Rosenberger, Wallach and Marlow, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

294 A.D.2d 101, 740 N.Y.S.2d 866, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4365, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/suriel-v-new-york-city-housing-authority-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack