Jacobson v. 142 E. 16 Cooperative Owners, Inc.
Cases that cite this one
6 later published cases cite this decision.
- Liberman v. Cayre Synergy 73rd LLC (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
- Liberman v. Cayre Synergy 73rd LLC (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
- Gendell v. 42 W.17th St. Hous. Corp. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2021)
- Carlos v. 395 E. 151st Street, LLC (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2007)
- Franco v. P & M Management Realty Corp. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2007)
- Daitch v. Naman (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2006)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Alice Schlesinger, J.), entered on or about December 19, 2001, which, to the extent appealed from, denied in part defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, with costs.
Plaintiff, in his first cause of action, alleges, in part, that defendants, through their agents or employees or both, failed to repair the water leaks in his apartment, and that defendants hired an incompetent contractor to do roof, exterior and terrace repairs and did not inspect and/or supervise the contractor’s work. These allegations state a cognizable claim for relief even if an independent contractor performed the allegedly defective work. Pursuant to Multiple Dwelling Law § 78 (1) defendant landlord and managing agent were under a nondelegable duty to maintain the premises at issue, “including its roof or roofs, and every part thereof and the lot upon which it is situated * * * in good repair,” and are thus “vicariously liable for any negligence on the part of the independent contractor” in effecting repairs (Dowling v 257 Assoc., 235 AD2d 293, 293). Defendants, in moving for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, have not met their burden to demonstrate a prima facie case of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see,
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.