From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Pereira v. New York City Housing Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 9, 1998
247 A.D.2d 455 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)

Opinion

February 9, 1998

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Leone, J.).


Ordered that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs.

Contrary to the appellant's contention, the Supreme Court did not err in denying its motion for summary judgment. Although the appellant claims that it fully complied with New York City Housing Authority contract specifications in installing a steam riser in the bathroom of the plaintiffs' apartment, the evidentiary proof submitted in opposition to the motion was sufficient to create a triable issue of fact as to whether the appellant failed to comply with the specifications, and whether this failure created a dangerous condition in the plaintiffs' apartment ( see, Giordano v. Seeyle, Stevenson Knight, 216 A.D.2d 439). We note, however, that the appellant had no contractual duty to insulate the steam riser or to build a guard around it, and that there is no evidence that its failure to do so violated any applicable municipal rules, regulations, or ordinances. Under these circumstances, the appellant cannot be held liable to the plaintiffs for its alleged negligence in failing to either insulate or build a guard around the steam riser ( cf., Palka v. Servicemaster Mgt. Servs. Corp., 83 N.Y.2d 579; see, Fecht v. City of New York, 244 A.D.2d 315; Gurriell v. Town of Huntington, 129 A.D.2d 768).

O'Brien, J.P., Thompson, Santucci and McGinity, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Pereira v. New York City Housing Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 9, 1998
247 A.D.2d 455 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
Case details for

Pereira v. New York City Housing Authority

Case Details

Full title:KRISTAL PEREIRA et al., Respondents, v. NEW YORK CITY HOUSING AUTHORITY…

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

Date published: Feb 9, 1998

Citations

247 A.D.2d 455 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
668 N.Y.S.2d 672

Citing Cases

Baran v. Port Authority of New York & New Jersey

Here, as Turner notes, it did not contend in support of its motion that it cannot be held vicariously liable…

Baran v. Port Authority of New York & New Jersey

Here, as Turner notes, it did not contend in support of its motion that it cannot be held vicariously liable…