Vanderlinde v. 600 West 183rd Street Realty Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Vanderlinde v. 600 West 183rd Street Realty Corp.

101 A.D.3d 583, 955 N.Y.2d 516

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

DecidedDecember 20, 2012

StatusPublished

This text of 101 A.D.3d 583 (Vanderlinde v. 600 West 183rd Street Realty 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

Vanderlinde v. 600 West 183rd Street Realty Corp., 101 A.D.3d 583, 955 N.Y.2d 516 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

Defendant landlord made a prima facie showing of its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law with evidence that it had no duty to maintain, repair or replace the smoke detector in the tenant plaintiffs’ apartment. Defendant submitted evidence showing that it had installed a functional smoke detector in plaintiffs’ apartment within one year of the subject fire and had not received written notice of an inoperable detector within one year of its installation (see Administrative Code of City of NY § 27-2045 [a] [1], [3], [4]; [c]).

In opposition, plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Any oral complaints about the smoke detector did not impose a duty upon defendant (see Administrative Code § 27-2045 [a] [4]).

[584]*584We have considered plaintiffs’ remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur — Tom, J.P., Sweeny, DeGrasse, Manzanet-Daniels and Clark, JJ.

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

Defendant landlord made a prima facie showing of its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law with evidence that it had no duty to maintain, repair or replace the smoke detector in the tenant plaintiffs’ apartment. Defendant submitted evidence showing that it had installed a functional smoke detector in plaintiffs’ apartment within one year of the subject fire and had not received written notice of an inoperable detector within one year of its installation (see Administrative Code of City of NY § 27-2045 [a] [1], [3], [4]; [c]).

In opposition, plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Any oral complaints about the smoke detector did not impose a duty upon defendant (see Administrative Code § 27-2045 [a] [4]).

[584]*584We have considered plaintiffs’ remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur — Tom, J.P., Sweeny, DeGrasse, Manzanet-Daniels and Clark, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

101 A.D.3d 583, 955 N.Y.2d 516, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/vanderlinde-v-600-west-183rd-street-realty-corp-nyappdiv-2012.