Yaniveth R. v. LTD Realty Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Yaniveth R. v. LTD Realty Co.

120 A.D.3d 1142, 992 N.Y.S.2d 434

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

DecidedSeptember 25, 2014

Docket13041 2268/06

StatusPublished

This text of 120 A.D.3d 1142 (Yaniveth R. v. LTD Realty Co.) 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

Yaniveth R. v. LTD Realty Co., 120 A.D.3d 1142, 992 N.Y.S.2d 434 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Lucindo Suarez, J.), entered May 28, 2013, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted defendant LTD Realty Co.’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against it, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendant established prima facie that the infant plaintiff was cared for at the apartment, during the day, but resided elsewhere, with her parents (see Administrative Code of City of NY former § 27-2013 [h] [1], now §§ 27-2056.3, 27-2056.5, 27-2056.6, 27-2056.18; Juarez v Wavecrest Mgt. Team, 88 NY2d 628 [1996]; Hanlan v Parkckester N. Condominium, Inc., 32 AD3d 799 [1st Dept 2006]; Michaud v Lefferts 750, LLC, 87 AD3d 990 [2d Dept 2011]). In opposition, plaintiffs failed to raise an issue of fact as to the infant’s residence at the premises.

We have considered plaintiffs’ remaining arguments and find them unavailing.

Concur; — Sweeny, J.R, Moskowitz, DeGrasse, Manzanet-Daniels and Clark, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Lucindo Suarez, J.), entered May 28, 2013, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted defendant LTD Realty Co.’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against it, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendant established prima facie that the infant plaintiff was cared for at the apartment, during the day, but resided elsewhere, with her parents (see Administrative Code of City of NY former § 27-2013 [h] [1], now §§ 27-2056.3, 27-2056.5, 27-2056.6, 27-2056.18; Juarez v Wavecrest Mgt. Team, 88 NY2d 628 [1996]; Hanlan v Parkckester N. Condominium, Inc., 32 AD3d 799 [1st Dept 2006]; Michaud v Lefferts 750, LLC, 87 AD3d 990 [2d Dept 2011]). In opposition, plaintiffs failed to raise an issue of fact as to the infant’s residence at the premises.

We have considered plaintiffs’ remaining arguments and find them unavailing.

Concur; — Sweeny, J.R, Moskowitz, DeGrasse, Manzanet-Daniels and Clark, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

120 A.D.3d 1142, 992 N.Y.S.2d 434, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/yaniveth-r-v-ltd-realty-co-nyappdiv-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack