From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Arthur Richards, Inc. v. 79 Fifth Avenue Company

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Oct 7, 1982
441 N.E.2d 1114 (N.Y. 1982)

Opinion

Decided October 7, 1982

Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department, DAVID F. LEE, JR., J.

James A. Magee for appellant.

John F. Scully for 79 Fifth Ave. Co. and another, respondents.



On review of submissions pursuant to rule 500.2 (b) of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 N.Y.CRR 500.2 [g]), order reversed, with costs, and judgment of Supreme Court, New York County, reinstated for the reasons stated in the dissenting memorandum by Justice ARNOLD FEIN at the Appellate Division ( 88 A.D.2d 517, 518), to which we add only that the testimony of the building superintendent that his usual practice was to tell the tenants when the water was to be turned back on and that he knew when he turned the water back on on August 27 that everyone had left the L D premises and that he could not get into those premises, establishes a sufficient basis for the jury's finding of negligence on the part of the owner and management company.

Concur: Chief Judge COOKE and Judges JASEN, GABRIELLI, JONES, WACHTLER, FUCHSBERG and MEYER.


Summaries of

Arthur Richards, Inc. v. 79 Fifth Avenue Company

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Oct 7, 1982
441 N.E.2d 1114 (N.Y. 1982)
Case details for

Arthur Richards, Inc. v. 79 Fifth Avenue Company

Case Details

Full title:ARTHUR RICHARDS, INC., Respondent, v. 79 FIFTH AVENUE COMPANY et al.…

Court:Court of Appeals of the State of New York

Date published: Oct 7, 1982

Citations

441 N.E.2d 1114 (N.Y. 1982)
441 N.E.2d 1114
455 N.Y.S.2d 596

Citing Cases

Davison v. Wiggand

Under the circumstances, we are unpersuaded by plaintiffs' contention that defendant's "control" of the pipes…

Young v. 9 E. 96th St. Apartment Corp.

Nevertheless, summary judgment dismissing the third cause of action is denied. Young argues that 9 East Corp.…