Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Laura McCARTHY, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. The BOARD OF MANAGERS OF the BROMLEY CONDOMINIUM, et al., Defendants-Appellants, 83rd Street investors, L.P., et al., Defendants.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward Lehner, J.), entered March 10, 1999, which denied defendants-appellants' motions to dismiss the complaint as time-barred, for leave to amend an answer to assert the defense that the action was time-barred, and for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously modified, on the law, and said motions granted to the extent of dismissing the plaintiff's fourth, thirty-first and thirty-second causes of action, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.
Plaintiff's fourth cause of action premised upon an alleged warranty of habitability by defendant condominium corporation should have been dismissed since it is clear that defendant condominium did not extend a warranty of habitability to the individually owned unit in question (see, Mailman v. Abbady, 216 A.D.2d 115, 629 N.Y.S.2d 6), and, in any event, would have made no such warranty to plaintiff subtenant, with whom it had “neither a contractual agreement nor landlord-tenant relationship” (see, Wright v. Catcendix Corp., 248 A.D.2d 186, 670 N.Y.S.2d 15). Plaintiff's 31st and 32nd causes of action alleging breaches of warranties of merchantability and fitness by defendant air-conditioning maintenance contractor Arista should have been dismissed as well, since that defendant was not a warrantor of the goods it merely serviced (see, Vernon v. Potamkin Cadillac Corp., 118 A.D.2d 698, 700, 499 N.Y.S.2d 975). Plaintiff's remaining causes were properly upheld as against appellants' claims that they were time-barred, since plaintiff's first-commenced action was not a nullity (cf., Halliday v. Town of Halfmoon, 235 A.D.2d 709, 652 N.Y.S.2d 158). We have considered appellants' remaining arguments and find them unavailing.
MEMORANDUM DECISION.
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: April 06, 2000
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)