Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006

Munoz v. 42 Holding Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York · Decided June 29, 2006

30 A.D.3d 361; 817 N.Y.S.2d 286

Cases that cite this one

5 later published cases cite this decision.

E.S. v. Windsor Owners Corp. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2024)
Polanco v. Creston Avenue Properties, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2011)
Ibert v. Tuscan Associates, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2007)
Concepcion v. Walsh (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2007)
Peri v. City of New York (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2007)

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, Bronx County (Dianne T. Renwick, J.), entered December 9, 2005, which denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendant met its prima facie burden of establishing lack of notice that a child no more than seven years of age resided in the subject apartment. However, based on multiple repairs al*362legedly made in the apartment by the superintendent, and the fact that plaintiff and the superintendent lived on the same floor, plaintiff raised material issues of fact as to whether defendant had constructive notice that such a child lived in the apartment (see Woolfalk v New York City Hous., Auth., 263 AD2d 355 [1999]; cf. Juarez v Wavecrest Mgt. Team, 88 NY2d 628 [1996]).

We have considered defendant’s other arguments and find them unavailing. Concur—Sullivan, J.P., Williams, Catterson and McGuire, JJ.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.