Opinion
December 19, 2000.
Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Michael DeMarco, J.), entered on or about May 23, 2000, which denied the motion of defendants Ramjatan and Eesardeen Budhu for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against them, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
John M. Daly, for plaintiffs-respondents.
Montgomery L. Effinger, for defendants-appellants.
Before: Nardelli, J.P., Tom, Lerner, Buckley, Friedman, JJ.
Supreme Court properly denied the Budhu defendants' motion for summary judgment since issues of fact exist with respect to whether they breached their contractual obligations to keep the premises in good repair (see,Putnam v. Stout, 38 N.Y.2d 607; and see, Russo v. 491 W. St. Corp., 176 A.D.2d 672) and whether they had notice of the alleged hazardous condition and a reasonable opportunity to repair it (see, Juarez v. Wavecrest Mgt. Team Ltd., 88 N.Y.2d 628, 642; and see, Espinal v. 570 W. 156thAssocs., 258 A.D.2d 309).
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.