Litwack v. Plaza Realty Investors, Inc.
| Decision Date | 28 October 2008 |
| Docket Number | No. 159.,159. |
| Citation | 898 N.E.2d 571,11 N.Y.3d 820 |
| Parties | Wendy LITWACK, Appellant, v. PLAZA REALTY INVESTORS, INC., et al., Respondents. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs, and the certified question answered in the affirmative.
In April 1999, plaintiff complained to the apartment building doorman about a four-to-six inch "brown wet, dark brownish" spot in the middle of her dining room wall. Within a week, a building handyman removed about five inches of sheetrock, revealing a potential tiny crack in a steam pipe. When the steam was turned on in October, revealing the precise location of a hair-width, one-eighth-inch long crack, a plumber was able to replace that section of the pipe, and a building handyman repaired the wall. Plaintiff additionally complained that, during summer months, air conditioners in her apartment dripped; in response, building staff from time to time changed the filters. In either the fall or winter of 1999, plaintiff began to feel ill and in July 2001 doctors advised her to have her apartment environmentally tested. Testing confirmed the presence of toxic mold, and plaintiff vacated the apartment that month. Thereafter, in October 2001, plaintiff notified the landlords of the claimed mold condition.
After plaintiff brought suit for, among other things, negligence, defendants landlords moved for summary judgment. Supreme Court granted summary judgment, concluding that plaintiff did not give defendants sufficient notice of the toxic mold condition and holding that "there was no proof of continuous complaints about the repeated entry of water, based on repair work undertaken by the owner, which could warrant an issue as to the foreseeability of a mold hazard." The Appellate Division affirmed, with one Justice dissenting, on the ground that, as a matter of law, the evidence was insufficient to put defendants on notice of a hazardous mold condition, and certified the following question: "Was the order of the Supreme Court, as affirmed by the decision and order of this Court...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Williams v. Graf
...requires indicia other than wetness, such as musty or moldy odors or entry of particulates in the premises. Litwack v. Plaza Realty Invs., Inc., 11 N.Y.3d 820, 822 (2008); Lark v. Leon B. Dematteis Assoc., LLC, 48 A.D.3d 354, 355 (1st Dep't 2008); Daitch v. Naman, 25 A.D.3d 458, 459 (1st De......
-
Oates v. Iacovelli
...to make repairs and reserves the right to enter in order to inspect or to make such repairs' " ( Litwack v. Plaza Realty Invs., Inc., 11 N.Y.3d 820, 821, 869 N.Y.S.2d 388, 898 N.E.2d 571 [2008], quoting Chapman v. Silber, 97 N.Y.2d 9, 19, 734 N.Y.S.2d 541, 760 N.E.2d 329 [2001]; see Rossal-......
-
Marino v. A.G. Properties of Kingston Llc
...it prior to Marino's fall ( see Oates v. Iacovelli, 80 A.D.3d at 1060, 915 N.Y.S.2d 711; see also Litwack v. Plaza Realty Invs., Inc., 11 N.Y.3d 820, 821, 869 N.Y.S.2d 388, 898 N.E.2d 571 [2008]; Chapman v. Silber, 97 N.Y.2d 9, 20, 734 N.Y.S.2d 541, 760 N.E.2d 329 [2001] ). In that regard, ......
-
Wagner v. Waterman Estates, LLC
...to make repairs and reserves the right to enter in order to inspect or to make such repairs' ” (Litwack v. Plaza Realty Invs., Inc., 11 N.Y.3d 820, 821, 869 N.Y.S.2d 388, 898 N.E.2d 571 ). Here, the lease agreement provided that the landlord and its agents shall have the right to enter the ......