building defendant in New York

2013A violation summary report prepared by HPD indicates that, on October 16, 2007, a notice of violation was issued to the building that stated, “§ 27-2005 ADM code replace with new the missing cover to baseboard heaters in the entire apartment located at apt 3C.” By virtue of the foregoing, plaintiff raised issues of fact whether defendants, through a course of conduct, assumed a duty to cover the baseboard heating unit (see generally Volpe v Hudson View Assoc., LLC, 109 AD3d 814 [2d Dept 2013]), whether defendants created an unsafe condition by removing the baseboard heating unit’s cover and le

2013A violation summary report prepared by HPD indicates that, on October 16, 2007, a notice of violation was issued to the building that stated, “§ 27-2005 ADM code replace with new the missing cover to baseboard heaters in the entire apartment located at apt 3C.” By virtue of the foregoing, plaintiff raised issues of fact whether defendants, through a course of conduct, assumed a duty to cover the baseboard heating unit (see generally Volpe v Hudson View Assoc., LLC, 109 AD3d 814 [2d Dept 2013]), whether defendants created an unsafe condition by removing the baseboard heating unit’s cover and le

2025Slipping down one step in a permanent staircase does not involve a "physically significant elevation differential." Further, as the Building defendants point out, the permanent staircase is not a scaffold, ladder, hoist or other devices encompassed in the statute (NYSCEF # 148 at 5 citing Lombardo v Park Tower Mgt, Ltd, 76 AD3d 497 [1st Dept 2010] [finding that the three-foot permanent stairway was not a safety device or a temporary stairway to protect workers from an elevated risk under§ 240 (1) and Ryan v Morse Diesel, Inc., 98 AD2d 615 [1st Dept 1983] [stating that a permanent stairway used

2003For conduct to serve as a basis for punitive damages, there must be evidence of malice or a wanton disregard for public safety (see Bothmer v Schooler, Weinstein, Minsky & Lester, 266 AD2d 154 [1999]; Camillo v Geer, 185 AD2d 192, 194 [1992] ).

2003Network, 302 AD2d 491 [2003]; Coletta v City of New York, 291 AD2d 527 [2002]; Garcia v U-Haul Co., supra).

2003Network, 302 AD2d 491 [2003]; Coletta v City of New York, 291 AD2d 527 [2002]; Garcia v U-Haul Co., supra).

2002Shortly after the explosion, a grand jury in the Southern District of New York began investigating the bombing and in September 1993, the grand jury issued indictments against Ahmad Mohammad Ajaj, Ramzi Ahmed Yousef, and several others on various charges relating to their participation in the bombing of the WTC, including a charge of conspiracy to damage and destroy a building in violation of 18 USC § 844 (i) (see, United States v Suleiman, 208 F3d 32, 34-35 ).

1995Moreover, concerning the merits, the lease provision stating that the garden portion of the premises "may constitute a building violation” negates any claim of justifiable reliance on defendant’s alleged representations to the contrary, precluding a viable claim of fraud (see, Burroughs Corp. v Datacap, Inc., 124 AD2d 622 ).

1994On these facts, partial summary judgment on the issue of defendant-appellant Jacob Perl Associates’ ("Perl”) liability as owner of the building for violation of Labor Law § 240 (1) was properly awarded (see, Stolt v General Foods Corp., 81 NY2d 918 ).

1994In particular, we note that, as the elevator was inoperable, plaintiff was engaged in "repair” work within the meaning of the statute (see, Izrailev v Ficarra Furniture, 70 NY2d 813 ).

1957MeGoldrich, 281 App. Div. 850 ; Matter of Kings County Properties v. Abrams, 2 A D 2d 710.) We are also of the opinion that, on the record presented, the State Rent Administrator did not act arbitrarily or capriciously in refusing to make an adjustment in the rent reduction for the painting of some portions of the apartment which had been done to remove a building violation.

1956Corp. v. Bachnoff ( 1 Misc 2d 834 , unanimously affd. 1 Misc 2d 835 ) this court held that an air-conditioning unit entirely within the window line of a building with the exception of about six inches which protrudes beyond the window sill and which in general is neither attached nor touches the outside of a building in any way does not constitute an unlawful trespass upon the landlord’s property.

1956Corp. v. Bachnoff ( 1 Misc 2d 834 , unanimously affd. 1 Misc 2d 835 ) this court held that an air-conditioning unit entirely within the window line of a building with the exception of about six inches which protrudes beyond the window sill and which in general is neither attached nor touches the outside of a building in any way does not constitute an unlawful trespass upon the landlord’s property.

1921Mr. Pomeroy in his work on Equity Jurisprudence (Vol. 4, § 283, p. 3978) says: “Where a party knowingly, and against remonstrances, builds in violation of restrictive covenants, a mandatory injunction may issue to compel the removal of such portions of the building as are in violation thereof. * * * Attorney-General v. Algonquin Club, 153 Mass. 447 .

1921If such relief were not allowed, something not short of a right would be claimed by stoutly asserting an invalid claim.” See, also, O’Connor v. Bauer, 127 App. Div. 854 ; Jones Ease. .(1898 ed.) § 890.

1920That agreement was considered and construed by this court in Eiseman & Co., Inc., v. Kugelman ( 188 App. Div. 718 ).

1917This court recently in Reed v. Sobel, decided on the 13th day of April, 1917 ( 177 App. Div. 532 ), held that a covenant that the first buildings to be erected on premises conveyed should be “ private dwellings constructed for the use of one family only,” did not restrict the use, and that without front exterior architectural' changes the building could be lawfully changed into apartments; and in Baumert v. Malkin ( 178 App. Div. 913 ) this court held that a covenant in a conveyance providing that the first buildings should be “ first-class private dwellings designed for the use of one family

1917This court recently in Reed v. Sobel, decided on the 13th day of April, 1917 ( 177 App. Div. 532 ), held that a covenant that the first buildings to be erected on premises conveyed should be “ private dwellings constructed for the use of one family only,” did not restrict the use, and that without front exterior architectural' changes the building could be lawfully changed into apartments; and in Baumert v. Malkin ( 178 App. Div. 913 ) this court held that a covenant in a conveyance providing that the first buildings should be “ first-class private dwellings designed for the use of one family