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)
- Kent v. 534 East 11th Street, 80 A.D.3d 106 (2010)
- Kent v. 534 East 11th Street, 80 A.D.3d 106 (2010)
- Kent v. 534 East 11th Street, 80 A.D.3d 106 (2010)
- Kent v. 534 East 11th Street, 80 A.D.3d 106 (2010)
- Kent v. 534 East 11th Street, 80 A.D.3d 106 (2010)
- Kent v. 534 East 11th Street, 80 A.D.3d 106 (2010)
- Kent v. 534 East 11th Street, 80 A.D.3d 106 (2010)
- Kent v. 534 East 11th Street, 80 A.D.3d 106 (2010)
- Kent v. 534 East 11th Street, 80 A.D.3d 106 (2010)
- Kent v. 534 East 11th Street, 80 A.D.3d 106 (2010)
- Kent v. 534 East 11th Street, 80 A.D.3d 106 (2010)
- Kent v. 534 East 11th Street, 80 A.D.3d 106 (2010)
- Kent v. 534 East 11th Street, 80 A.D.3d 106 (2010)
- Kent v. 534 East 11th Street, 80 A.D.3d 106 (2010)
- Kent v. 534 East 11th Street, 80 A.D.3d 106 (2010)
- Kent v. 534 East 11th Street, 80 A.D.3d 106 (2010)
- Kent v. 534 East 11th Street, 80 A.D.3d 106 (2010)
- Kent v. 534 East 11th Street, 80 A.D.3d 106 (2010)
- Kent v. 534 East 11th Street, 80 A.D.3d 106 (2010)
- Kent v. 534 East 11th Street, 80 A.D.3d 106 (2010)
- Kent v. 534 East 11th Street, 80 A.D.3d 106 (2010)
- Kent v. 534 East 11th Street, 80 A.D.3d 106 (2010)
- Kent v. 534 East 11th Street, 80 A.D.3d 106 (2010)
- Kent v. 534 East 11th Street, 80 A.D.3d 106 (2010)
- Kent v. 534 East 11th Street, 80 A.D.3d 106 (2010)
- Kent v. 534 East 11th Street, 80 A.D.3d 106 (2010)
- Kent v. 534 East 11th Street, 80 A.D.3d 106 (2010)
- Kent v. 534 East 11th Street, 80 A.D.3d 106 (2010)
- Kent v. 534 East 11th Street, 80 A.D.3d 106 (2010)
- Kent v. 534 East 11th Street, 80 A.D.3d 106 (2010)
- Kent v. 534 East 11th Street, 80 A.D.3d 106 (2010)
- Kent v. 534 East 11th Street, 80 A.D.3d 106 (2010)
- Kent v. 534 East 11th Street, 80 A.D.3d 106 (2010)
- Kent v. 534 East 11th Street, 80 A.D.3d 106 (2010)
- Kent v. 534 East 11th Street, 80 A.D.3d 106 (2010)
- Kent v. 534 East 11th Street, 80 A.D.3d 106 (2010)
- Kent v. 534 East 11th Street, 80 A.D.3d 106 (2010)
- Kent v. 534 East 11th Street, 80 A.D.3d 106 (2010)
- Kent v. 534 East 11th Street, 80 A.D.3d 106 (2010)
- Kent v. 534 East 11th Street, 80 A.D.3d 106 (2010)
- Kent v. 534 East 11th Street, 80 A.D.3d 106 (2010)
- Kent v. 534 East 11th Street, 80 A.D.3d 106 (2010)
- Kent v. 534 East 11th Street, 80 A.D.3d 106 (2010)
- Kent v. 534 East 11th Street, 80 A.D.3d 106 (2010)
Full Text
1,023 charsHowever, in any cause of action that asserts constructive eviction or breach of warranty of habitability due to contamination affecting health, the plaintiff is obliged to produce some evidence of a causal connection. (See 360 W. 51st St. Realty, LLC v Cornell, 14 Misc 3d 90, 91 [App Term, 1st Dept 2007].) Here, the physician’s affirmation rests only on the plaintiffs representations that her shortness of breath and thyroid problems started with the defendants’ roof repair work in 2002. Further, the physician’s recommendation that the plaintiff should move for health reasons was based solely on the plaintiffs report as to contamination in her apartment. Indeed, no reliable air samples were ever taken in the apartment,2 and thus Dr. Rich-man’s conclusion that plaintiffs symptoms were “exacerbated” by inhalation of toxic particles was totally unfounded. Hence, the physician’s affirmation does not reach the level of sufficient evidence in order for the plaintiff to prevail in her opposition to summary judgment.