Skip to main content
DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

Kent v. 534 East 11th Street, 80 A.D.3d 106 (2010)

Citation
Kent v. 534 East 11th Street, 80 A.D.3d 106 (2010)
Parent Document
Kent v. 534 East 11th Street, 80 A.D.3d 106 (2010)
Jurisdiction
New York (state)
Effective Date
2010-10-28

Other Sections in This Document (44)

Full Text

996 chars
Even if we were to accept, arguendo, that the unsworn reports had any probative value, the most they could demonstrate is that there was some contamination in the unit in July 2006. There is no evidence that such contaminants were in the apartment in 2002, or at any time prior to July 2006, or that they were a result of construction work in 2002. Further, according to the plaintiffs expert, there was no detectable contamination in the apartment in September 2006. The plaintiffs allegation that hazardous conditions still exist is based on Browne’s statement that “[o]bviously, this assessment [of decontamination] did not apply to the study or office, which was not cleaned or decontaminated, and which I did not test” (emphasis added). This is insufficient evidence to raise a triable issue of fact as to existing contamination in the plaintiffs study especially in view of an e-mail dated October 19, 2006, written by Browne, which stated: “I think that you can sublet with peace of mind.”