From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Town of Conklin v. Ritter

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Feb 7, 2002
765 N.E.2d 851 (N.Y. 2002)

Opinion

33

Decided February 7, 2002.

Appeal, by permission of the Court of Appeals, from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Third Judicial Department, entered July 19, 2001, which affirmed (1) an order of the Supreme Court (Patrick D. Monserrate, J.), entered in Broome County, granting plaintiff Town's motion for partial summary judgment, and (2) the judgment entered thereon.

The Town sought an order directing defendant apartment building owner to repair its building and conform to the provisions of the Uniform Fire Prevention and Building Code. Supreme Court denied defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint, concluding that under the language of the Code's enacting legislation in the Executive Law, those provisions of the Code regulating property maintenance apply to buildings such as defendant's which were constructed prior to the Code's enactment. Thereafter, the court granted the Town's motion for partial summary judgment and directed the defendant to repair the violations.

The Appellate Division affirmed, rejecting defendant's contention that the maintenance provisions of the Code would not be applicable to the building since it was in existence prior to the enactment thereof, for all of the reasons detailed by Supreme Court in its first decision, and concluding that defendant failed to produce evidentiary proof in admissible form sufficient to establish a triable issue of fact in response to plaintiff's prima facie showing of Code violations.

Submitted by Keith A. O'Hara, for respondent.

Submitted by Douglas Ritter, pro se, appellant.

Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Smith, Levine, Ciparick, Wesley, Rosenblatt and Graffeo concur.


MEMORANDUM:

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs. The courts below correctly concluded that the State Uniform Fire Prevention and Building Code applies to defendant's building. Defendant's remaining arguments are either unpreserved or without merit.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.4 of the Rules, order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.


Summaries of

Town of Conklin v. Ritter

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Feb 7, 2002
765 N.E.2d 851 (N.Y. 2002)
Case details for

Town of Conklin v. Ritter

Case Details

Full title:TOWN OF CONKLIN, Respondent, v. DOUGLAS RITTER, Appellant

Court:Court of Appeals of the State of New York

Date published: Feb 7, 2002

Citations

765 N.E.2d 851 (N.Y. 2002)
765 N.E.2d 851
739 N.Y.S.2d 355

Citing Cases

Ali v. Goord

In opposing respondent's motion, petitioner submitted his affidavit averring that the petition had been filed…

Betances v. 470 Audubon Ave. Corp.

Town of Conklin v Ritter, 285 AD2d 855, 856 (3d Dep't 2001). In a three sentence decision, the Court of…