Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Questions of Fact Preclude Summary Judgment in Co-op Shareholder's Water Damages Action
Karydas v. Ferrara-Ruurds
NYLJ 9/6/16, p. 20, col. 2
AppDiv, First Dept.
(4-1 decision; memorandum opinion; dissenting opinion by Andrias, J.)
In an action by co-op shareholder against an upstairs neighbor and the managing agent seeking damages for water damage to shareholder's apartment, the managing agent appealed from Supreme Court's denial of its summary judgment motion. The Appellate Division affirmed, holding that questions of fact about the actions of the managing agent's plumbers precluded summary judgment.
Water leaked into shareholder's apartment from the apartment of his upstairs neighbor. Shareholder called the managing agent to fix the leak, and the managing agent dispatched plumbers to the scene on at least four occasions, all in response to plaintiff shareholder's complaints. The plumbers' efforts were unsuccessful, and water cascaded into shareholder's apartment. Shareholder then brought this action against both the upstairs neighbor and the managing agent. Supreme Court denied managing agent's summary judgment motion.
In affirming, the Appellate Division majority acknowledged that managing agent's contract with the co-op was not so comprehensive as to displace the co-op board's duty to maintain the premises, but held that questions fact exist about whether the managing agent's plumbers had exacerbated the problem by launching an “instrument of harm” into the unit, potentially bringing the managing agent within the Espinal exception to the rule that immunizes an agent from liability to persons other than the agent's principal.
Justice Andrias, dissenting, contended that the managing agent's submissions established that the source of the water was the upstairs neighbor, and that the upstairs neighbor was solely responsible for the damage. He contended that shareholder had failed to offer any submissions indicating that the managing agent's plumbers caused or worsened the conditions in shareholder's apartment.
Questions of Fact Preclude Summary Judgment in Co-op Shareholder's Water Damages Action
Karydas v. Ferrara-Ruurds
NYLJ 9/6/16, p. 20, col. 2
AppDiv, First Dept.
(4-1 decision; memorandum opinion; dissenting opinion by Andrias, J.)
In an action by co-op shareholder against an upstairs neighbor and the managing agent seeking damages for water damage to shareholder's apartment, the managing agent appealed from Supreme Court's denial of its summary judgment motion. The Appellate Division affirmed, holding that questions of fact about the actions of the managing agent's plumbers precluded summary judgment.
Water leaked into shareholder's apartment from the apartment of his upstairs neighbor. Shareholder called the managing agent to fix the leak, and the managing agent dispatched plumbers to the scene on at least four occasions, all in response to plaintiff shareholder's complaints. The plumbers' efforts were unsuccessful, and water cascaded into shareholder's apartment. Shareholder then brought this action against both the upstairs neighbor and the managing agent. Supreme Court denied managing agent's summary judgment motion.
In affirming, the Appellate Division majority acknowledged that managing agent's contract with the co-op was not so comprehensive as to displace the co-op board's duty to maintain the premises, but held that questions fact exist about whether the managing agent's plumbers had exacerbated the problem by launching an “instrument of harm” into the unit, potentially bringing the managing agent within the Espinal exception to the rule that immunizes an agent from liability to persons other than the agent's principal.
Justice Andrias, dissenting, contended that the managing agent's submissions established that the source of the water was the upstairs neighbor, and that the upstairs neighbor was solely responsible for the damage. He contended that shareholder had failed to offer any submissions indicating that the managing agent's plumbers caused or worsened the conditions in shareholder's apartment.
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Ideally, the objective of defining the role and responsibilities of Practice Group Leaders should be to establish just enough structure and accountability within their respective practice group to maximize the economic potential of the firm, while institutionalizing the principles of leadership and teamwork.
In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?