From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Eifer v. Shmuelovitch

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 21, 1999
262 A.D.2d 523 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)

Opinion

Submitted June 2, 1999

June 21, 1999

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Barron, J.), dated April 30, 1998, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Law Offices of Lawrence N. Rogak, LLC, Oceanside, N.Y. (Marcy E. Pell of counsel), for appellants.

First First, New York, N.Y. (Mitchell First of counsel), for respondent.

SONDRA MILLER, J.P., THOMAS R. SULLIVAN, WILLIAM D. FRIEDMANN, SANDRA J. FEUERSTEIN, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff's complaint and bill of particulars gave notice that the plaintiff was proceeding on several theories of liability, including the defendants' alleged failure to install an operational smoke-detecting device in the plaintiff's dwelling unit and to provide a means of egress in good working order. In determining the defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, the Supreme Court properly entertained the issue of whether the defendants had violated the applicable provisions of the Administrative Code of the City of New York ( see, Matter of Belich, 234 A.D.2d 544; Dampskibsselskabet Torm A/S v. Thomas Paper Co., 26 A.D.2d 347, 352; see also, Olean Urban Renewal Agency v. Herman, 101 A.D.2d 712; Costello Assocs. v. Standard Metals Corp., 99 A.D.2d 227, 229; Rogoff v. San Juan Racing Assn., 77 A.D.2d 831, 832, affd 54 N.Y.2d 883). Contrary to the defendants' contention, the purpose of the affidavit of the plaintiff's attorney submitted in opposition to their motion was not to allege facts but to provide the applicable law. Since material questions of fact exist regarding the defendants' alleged failure to comply with certain provisions of the Administrative Code and whether such failure was a proximate cause of the plaintiff's injuries ( see, Ragona v. Hamilton Hall Realty, 251 A.D.2d 391; Tepoz v. Sosa, 241 A.D.2d 449), the motion for summary judgment was properly denied ( see, Zuckerman v. City of New York, 49 N.Y.2d 557).


Summaries of

Eifer v. Shmuelovitch

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 21, 1999
262 A.D.2d 523 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
Case details for

Eifer v. Shmuelovitch

Case Details

Full title:IGOR EIFER, respondent, v. YOSEF SHMUELOVITCH, et al., appellants

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Jun 21, 1999

Citations

262 A.D.2d 523 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
692 N.Y.S.2d 452

Citing Cases

Weber v. Paduano

Those decisions simply affirm in conclusory terms that the evidence presented to the trial court sufficed to…

Phillips v. Czajka

Even if, however, a violation of the statute had been shown, Plaintiffs would still be required to establish…