From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Ramirez v. Greenwich Village

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Apr 3, 2007
39 A.D.3d 236 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007)

Opinion

No. 681.

April 3, 2007.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Leland DeGrasse, J.), entered October 24, 2006, which denied defendant 101465 Realty, Inc.'s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Law Offices of Bruce A. Lawrence, Brooklyn (Steven Z. Rosenzweig of counsel), for appellant.

Barry McTiernan Moore, New York (Laurel A. Wedinger of counsel), for V F Greenwich Village, Inc., respondent.

Before: Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Sullivan, Nardelli and Buckley, JJ.


The relevant leases reserve to defendant landlord 101465 Realty, Inc. the right to reenter the demised premises for the purpose of inspection and repair. That reservation together with the circumstance that the summary judgment movant's evidence did not disprove plaintiff's allegation that the premises stairwell where he fell had significant structural or design defects in violation of the New York City Building Code, dictated the motion's denial ( see Kraus v Caliche Realty Estates, 289 AD2d 9).


Summaries of

Ramirez v. Greenwich Village

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Apr 3, 2007
39 A.D.3d 236 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007)
Case details for

Ramirez v. Greenwich Village

Case Details

Full title:EDWIN RAMIREZ et al., Respondents, v. 101465 REALTY, INC., Appellant, and…

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

Date published: Apr 3, 2007

Citations

39 A.D.3d 236 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007)
2007 N.Y. Slip Op. 2820
831 N.Y.S.2d 704

Citing Cases

Feldman v. A.R.J.S. Realty Corp.

The requisite additional circumstance might be found, as claimed here, in the alleged violation of the NYC…