Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Helena v. 300 Park Avenue LLC

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

Decided June 24, 2003Published

1ConcurrenceSullivan, J.

While I agree with the disposition reached by the court in reinstating the complaint, I write to express my view as to the case against Colgate-Palmolive. Since the lease provision requiring the landlord to maintain the “[b]uilding and the [p]remises and the fixtures and appurtenances therein” does not relieve the tenant of its common-law duty to maintain the premises in a reasonably safe condition (Zito v 241 Church St. Corp., 223 AD2d 353 [1996]; Chadis v Grand Union, 158 AD2d 443 [1990]), Colgate-Palmolive is not entitled to summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Chadis v. Grand Union Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1990
  2. Zito v. 241 Church Street Corp.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1996

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API