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

591 chars
*115Such discovery, however, as the plaintiff acknowledges, relates only to the roof renovation work, and thus cannot constitute relevant evidence as a matter of law. Even if the documentation or photographs showed that the brick or roofing, both of which were demolished in 2002, was contaminated, it would not render the plaintiffs claims as to negligence or damage to property or constructive eviction any less time-barred. Nor could such evidence establish that the plaintiffs apartment, inside the building, was contaminated to a level sufficient to breach the warranty of habitability.