Payne v. Rivera, 28 Misc. 3d 469 (2010)
- Citation
- Payne v. Rivera, 28 Misc. 3d 469 (2010)
- Parent Document
- Payne v. Rivera, 28 Misc. 3d 469 (2010)
- Jurisdiction
- New York (state)
- Effective Date
- 2010-05-14
- Original Source
- https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/6311519/payne-v-rivera/ ↗
Other Sections in This Document (17)
- Payne v. Rivera, 28 Misc. 3d 469 (2010)
- Payne v. Rivera, 28 Misc. 3d 469 (2010)
- Payne v. Rivera, 28 Misc. 3d 469 (2010)
- Payne v. Rivera, 28 Misc. 3d 469 (2010)
- Payne v. Rivera, 28 Misc. 3d 469 (2010)
- Payne v. Rivera, 28 Misc. 3d 469 (2010)
- Payne v. Rivera, 28 Misc. 3d 469 (2010)
- Payne v. Rivera, 28 Misc. 3d 469 (2010)
- Payne v. Rivera, 28 Misc. 3d 469 (2010)
- Payne v. Rivera, 28 Misc. 3d 469 (2010)
- Payne v. Rivera, 28 Misc. 3d 469 (2010)
- Payne v. Rivera, 28 Misc. 3d 469 (2010)
- Payne v. Rivera, 28 Misc. 3d 469 (2010)
- Payne v. Rivera, 28 Misc. 3d 469 (2010)
- Payne v. Rivera, 28 Misc. 3d 469 (2010)
- Payne v. Rivera, 28 Misc. 3d 469 (2010)
- Payne v. Rivera, 28 Misc. 3d 469 (2010)
Full Text
726 charsSummary judgment must be “denied if any party shall show facts sufficient to require a trial of any issue of fact.” (CPLR 3212 [b].) Here, there are issues of fact which must be tried. For example, respondents assert both as a defense and as a counterclaim that petitioner brought this proceeding to retaliate against them for lodging complaints about, among other things, a lack of heat; however, petitioner avers that respondents destroyed the heating system. For another example, respondents assert as both a defense and a counterclaim that petitioner breached the warranty of habitability,1 yet petitioner avers that respondents prevented her from making repairs. The court may not resolve these disputes on motion papers.