Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
13 New York opinions name it 3 courts 1978–2011 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by New York courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Gonzalez v. Stategreen1 sentence2011As for plaintiffs’ contention that their cross motion for summary judgment should have been granted because the defect in the stairs constituted a violation of the Building Code (see 9 NYCRR 765.4 [a] [9]), we note that it has not been established that the condition or the alleged building code violation was the sole proximate cause of this accident (see Sauer v Mannino, 309 AD2d 1053, 1054 [2003]; see also Gonzalez v State of New York, 60 AD3d 1193, 1194-1195 [2009], Iv denied 13 NY3d 712 [2009]; see generally Avina v Verburg, 47 AD3d 1188, 1189 [2008]). * As a result, plaintiffs’ cross motio | 1 | 1 |
Gonzalez v. Stategreen1 sentence2011As for plaintiffs’ contention that their cross motion for summary judgment should have been granted because the defect in the stairs constituted a violation of the Building Code (see 9 NYCRR 765.4 [a] [9]), we note that it has not been established that the condition or the alleged building code violation was the sole proximate cause of this accident (see Sauer v Mannino, 309 AD2d 1053, 1054 [2003]; see also Gonzalez v State of New York, 60 AD3d 1193, 1194-1195 [2009], Iv denied 13 NY3d 712 [2009]; see generally Avina v Verburg, 47 AD3d 1188, 1189 [2008]). * As a result, plaintiffs’ cross motio | 1 | 1 |
Avina v. Verburggreen1 sentence2011As for plaintiffs’ contention that their cross motion for summary judgment should have been granted because the defect in the stairs constituted a violation of the Building Code (see 9 NYCRR 765.4 [a] [9]), we note that it has not been established that the condition or the alleged building code violation was the sole proximate cause of this accident (see Sauer v Mannino, 309 AD2d 1053, 1054 [2003]; see also Gonzalez v State of New York, 60 AD3d 1193, 1194-1195 [2009], Iv denied 13 NY3d 712 [2009]; see generally Avina v Verburg, 47 AD3d 1188, 1189 [2008]). * As a result, plaintiffs’ cross motio | 1 | 1 |
Sauer v. Manninogreen1 sentence2011As for plaintiffs’ contention that their cross motion for summary judgment should have been granted because the defect in the stairs constituted a violation of the Building Code (see 9 NYCRR 765.4 [a] [9]), we note that it has not been established that the condition or the alleged building code violation was the sole proximate cause of this accident (see Sauer v Mannino, 309 AD2d 1053, 1054 [2003]; see also Gonzalez v State of New York, 60 AD3d 1193, 1194-1195 [2009], Iv denied 13 NY3d 712 [2009]; see generally Avina v Verburg, 47 AD3d 1188, 1189 [2008]). * As a result, plaintiffs’ cross motio | 1 | 1 |
O'Leary v. American Airlinesgreen1 sentence2006Moreover, plaintiff’s slip and fall on the roof, rather than from the roof, is not “a consequence against which the regulation [requiring roof parapets walls or railings] was intended to protect,” and there is thus no nexus between the alleged building code violation and plaintiffs injury (O'Leary v American Airlines, 100 AD2d 959, 960 [1984]; see Farkas v Saary, 191 AD2d 178, 180 [1993]). | 1 | 1 |
Farkas v. Saarygreen1 sentence2006Moreover, plaintiff’s slip and fall on the roof, rather than from the roof, is not “a consequence against which the regulation [requiring roof parapets walls or railings] was intended to protect,” and there is thus no nexus between the alleged building code violation and plaintiffs injury (O'Leary v American Airlines, 100 AD2d 959, 960 [1984]; see Farkas v Saary, 191 AD2d 178, 180 [1993]). | 1 | 1 |
In re Marquise EE.green2 sentences2004Evidence of a Building Code violation serves as some evidence of negligence on the part of defendants ( see , NYPJI 2:29, Statutory Standard of Care-Ordinance or Regulations); Hill v Cartier , 258 AD2d 699, 701 [3d Dept 1999]). 2004Evidence of a Building Code violation serves as some evidence of negligence on the part of defendants ( see , NYPJI 2:29, Statutory Standard of Care-Ordinance or Regulations); Hill v Cartier , 258 AD2d 699, 701 [3d Dept 1999]). | 1 | 1 |
Feldman v. Dombrowskygreen1 sentence2004Rather, the expert’s assertion that the out-of-level stair treads may have contributed to plaintiffs fall “was not based on admissible evidence in the record, was purely speculative, and was insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact” (Koller, 299 AD2d at 397 ; see Curran, 308 AD2d at 429 ; see also Bitterman v Grotyohann, 295 AD2d 383, 384 [2002]; cf. Feldman v Dombrowsky, 288 AD2d 605, 606 [2001]). | 1 | 1 |
Bitterman v. Grotyohanngreen1 sentence2004Rather, the expert’s assertion that the out-of-level stair treads may have contributed to plaintiffs fall “was not based on admissible evidence in the record, was purely speculative, and was insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact” (Koller, 299 AD2d at 397 ; see Curran, 308 AD2d at 429 ; see also Bitterman v Grotyohann, 295 AD2d 383, 384 [2002]; cf. Feldman v Dombrowsky, 288 AD2d 605, 606 [2001]). | 1 | 1 |
Curran v. Espositogreen1 sentence2004Rather, the expert’s assertion that the out-of-level stair treads may have contributed to plaintiffs fall “was not based on admissible evidence in the record, was purely speculative, and was insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact” (Koller, 299 AD2d at 397 ; see Curran, 308 AD2d at 429 ; see also Bitterman v Grotyohann, 295 AD2d 383, 384 [2002]; cf. Feldman v Dombrowsky, 288 AD2d 605, 606 [2001]). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Williamgreen2 sentences2003Realty Corp., 2002 NY Slip Op 50435[U] , *2-3 [App Term, 1st Dept 2002] [fire marshal’s sworn allegation that “exit door() ‘was obstructed by a table and chairs,’ sufficiently set forth the factual basis for the alleged Building Code violation,” notwithstanding absence of allegations “pinpointing ‘the proximity of the table and chairs to the exit door’ or the precise number and measurements of the items alleged to have obstructed the exit door”]; People v Aquino, 2002 NY Slip Op 50223[U] , *3 [App Term, 1st Dept 2002] [allegation that defendant left her five-year-old and seven-month-old childr 2003Realty Corp., 2002 NY Slip Op 50435[U] , *2-3 [App Term, 1st Dept 2002] [fire marshal’s sworn allegation that “exit door() ‘was obstructed by a table and chairs,’ sufficiently set forth the factual basis for the alleged Building Code violation,” notwithstanding absence of allegations “pinpointing ‘the proximity of the table and chairs to the exit door’ or the precise number and measurements of the items alleged to have obstructed the exit door”]; People v Aquino, 2002 NY Slip Op 50223[U] , *3 [App Term, 1st Dept 2002] [allegation that defendant left her five-year-old and seven-month-old childr | 1 | 1 |
Tenement House Department v. Moeschengreen2 sentences1978In Tenement House Dept. v Moeschen (supra), 9,000 buildings were affected by a new building code requirement for the installation of water closets. 1978Despite the fact that the average cost of compliance ranged from 10 to 15% of the property’s value, the law was upheld as a valid exercise of the police power. "[I]t is obvious that the full market value of the property, and not the value above incumbrances, should be taken into consideration when estimating the reasonableness of the proposed outlay to which defendant is to be subjected.” ( 179 NY, at p 333-334 .) In Queenside Hills Co. v Saxl ( 328 US 80 , supra), there was no constitutional infirmity in enacting a statute which necessitated the installation of a sprinkler system at a cost eq | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in New York. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Koller v. Leone
green
1 sentence2004Rather, the expert’s assertion that the out-of-level stair treads may have contributed to plaintiffs fall “was not based on admissible evidence in the record, was purely speculative, and was insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact” (Koller, 299 AD2d at 397 ; see Curran, 308 AD2d at 429 ; see also Bitterman v Grotyohann, 295 AD2d 383, 384 [2002]; cf. Feldman v Dombrowsky, 288 AD2d 605, 606 [2001]). | 1 | 2004–2004 |
People v. Casey
green
2 sentences2003Realty Corp., 2002 NY Slip Op 50435[U] , *2-3 [App Term, 1st Dept 2002] [fire marshal’s sworn allegation that “exit door() ‘was obstructed by a table and chairs,’ sufficiently set forth the factual basis for the alleged Building Code violation,” notwithstanding absence of allegations “pinpointing ‘the proximity of the table and chairs to the exit door’ or the precise number and measurements of the items alleged to have obstructed the exit door”]; People v Aquino, 2002 NY Slip Op 50223[U] , *3 [App Term, 1st Dept 2002] [allegation that defendant left her five-year-old and seven-month-old childr 2003Realty Corp., 2002 NY Slip Op 50435[U] , *2-3 [App Term, 1st Dept 2002] [fire marshal’s sworn allegation that “exit door() ‘was obstructed by a table and chairs,’ sufficiently set forth the factual basis for the alleged Building Code violation,” notwithstanding absence of allegations “pinpointing ‘the proximity of the table and chairs to the exit door’ or the precise number and measurements of the items alleged to have obstructed the exit door”]; People v Aquino, 2002 NY Slip Op 50223[U] , *3 [App Term, 1st Dept 2002] [allegation that defendant left her five-year-old and seven-month-old childr | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Davis v. HSS Properties Corp.
green
1 sentence2002Corp., 257 AD2d 500 ). | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Cortes v. 1515 Williamsbridge Associates, LLC
neutral
1 sentence2002Accordingly, Shakespeare is deemed to have constructive notice of any Building Code violation (see Cortes v 1515 Williamsbridge Assoc., 295 AD2d 188 ; Davis v HSS Prop. | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Elliott v. City of New York
green
2 sentences2001By decision rendered four days after the filing of the Transit Authority’s brief in this appeal, however, the Court of Appeals reversed this Court’s ruling in Elliott, holding that, with the exception of those Code provisions the content of which was approved or adopted by the Legislature, a Building Code violation would have the same tort consequences as a violation of any other pertinent ordinance. ( 95 NY2d 730 .) 5 That is, it would be merely evidence of negligence. 2001By decision rendered four days after the filing of the Transit Authority’s brief in this appeal, however, the Court of Appeals reversed this Court’s ruling in Elliott, holding that, with the exception of those Code provisions the content of which was approved or adopted by the Legislature, a Building Code violation would have the same tort consequences as a violation of any other pertinent ordinance. ( 95 NY2d 730 .) 5 That is, it would be merely evidence of negligence. | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Zuckerman v. City of New York
green
1 sentence2000The affidavit of the plaintiffs engineering expert regarding an alleged building code violation by the de fendant in failing to install handrails on the ramp at its loading dock was insufficient to defeat the defendant’s motion for summary judgment (see, Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320 ; Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557 ). | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Alvarez v. Prospect Hospital
green
1 sentence2000The affidavit of the plaintiffs engineering expert regarding an alleged building code violation by the de fendant in failing to install handrails on the ramp at its loading dock was insufficient to defeat the defendant’s motion for summary judgment (see, Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320 ; Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557 ). | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Manning v. New York Telephone Co.
green
1 sentence1998Co., 157 AD2d 264, 270 ). | 1 | 1998–1998 |
Wilson v. Proctors Theater & Arts Center & Theater of Schenectady, Inc.
green
1 sentence1998I further note that, contrary to the determination of the Supreme Court, the plaintiff was not required to allege a building code violation in support of her claims. “[C]ommon-law negligence claims premised on the existence of a dangerous condition, of which the defendant was, or should have been, aware” were sufficient (Wilson v Proctors Theater & Arts Ctr. & Theater, 223 AD2d 826, 828 ). | 1 | 1998–1998 |
In re Smyth
green
1 sentence1984Corp., 91 AD2d 565 ; Corris v 129 Front Co., 85 AD2d 176, 180 ; Lipkis v Pikus, 99 Misc 2d 518, 520 , affd 72 AD2d 697 ). | 1 | 1984–1984 |
Corris v. 129 Front Co.
green
1 sentence1984Corp., 91 AD2d 565 ; Corris v 129 Front Co., 85 AD2d 176, 180 ; Lipkis v Pikus, 99 Misc 2d 518, 520 , affd 72 AD2d 697 ). | 1 | 1984–1984 |
Pilgreen v. 91 Fifth Avenue Corp.
neutral
1 sentence1984Corp., 91 AD2d 565 ; Corris v 129 Front Co., 85 AD2d 176, 180 ; Lipkis v Pikus, 99 Misc 2d 518, 520 , affd 72 AD2d 697 ). | 1 | 1984–1984 |
Lipkis v. Pikus
green
1 sentence1984Corp., 91 AD2d 565 ; Corris v 129 Front Co., 85 AD2d 176, 180 ; Lipkis v Pikus, 99 Misc 2d 518, 520 , affd 72 AD2d 697 ). | 1 | 1984–1984 |
Taylor v. Eli Haddad Corp.
green
1 sentence1984While the landlord relies upon the nonwaiver clause of the lease and argues that residential use amounts to a building code violation, the factual issue cannot be resolved solely upon the affidavits adduced (see Taylor v Haddad Corp., 118 Misc 2d 253, 261 ). 1 However, we find error in the failure of Special Term to direct defendants to pay use and occupancy at the rate currently provided for as rent on each rental due date and, accordingly, modify the order to that extent (see Pilgreen v 91 Fifth Ave. | 1 | 1984–1984 |
Queenside Hills Realty Co. v. Saxl
green
1 sentence1978Despite the fact that the average cost of compliance ranged from 10 to 15% of the property’s value, the law was upheld as a valid exercise of the police power. "[I]t is obvious that the full market value of the property, and not the value above incumbrances, should be taken into consideration when estimating the reasonableness of the proposed outlay to which defendant is to be subjected.” ( 179 NY, at p 333-334 .) In Queenside Hills Co. v Saxl ( 328 US 80 , supra), there was no constitutional infirmity in enacting a statute which necessitated the installation of a sprinkler system at a cost eq | 1 | 1978–1978 |
North Shore Steak House, Inc. v. Board of Appeals of the Incorporated Village of Thomaston
green
1 sentence1978Home Constr., supra, see, also, Matter of Tandem Holding Co. v Board of Zoning Appeals of Town of Hempstead, 43 NY2d 801 ; Matter of North Shore Steak House v Board of Appeals of Inc. Vil. of Thomaston, 30 NY2d 238 .) In addition to such impermissible considerations, the board based its determination on a finding that the proposed structure was not in compliance with a building code requirement that vertical studding measure two inches by four inches. | 1 | 1978–1978 |
MATTER OF PLEASANT VALLEY HOME CONSTR., LTD. v. Wagner
green
1 sentence1978Home Constr., supra, see, also, Matter of Tandem Holding Co. v Board of Zoning Appeals of Town of Hempstead, 43 NY2d 801 ; Matter of North Shore Steak House v Board of Appeals of Inc. Vil. of Thomaston, 30 NY2d 238 .) In addition to such impermissible considerations, the board based its determination on a finding that the proposed structure was not in compliance with a building code requirement that vertical studding measure two inches by four inches. | 1 | 1978–1978 |
Tandem Holding Corp. v. Board of Zoning Appeals of Hempstead
green
1 sentence1978Home Constr., supra, see, also, Matter of Tandem Holding Co. v Board of Zoning Appeals of Town of Hempstead, 43 NY2d 801 ; Matter of North Shore Steak House v Board of Appeals of Inc. Vil. of Thomaston, 30 NY2d 238 .) In addition to such impermissible considerations, the board based its determination on a finding that the proposed structure was not in compliance with a building code requirement that vertical studding measure two inches by four inches. | 1 | 1978–1978 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.