Pershad v. Parkchester South Condominium, 174 Misc. 2d 92 (1997)
- Citation
- Pershad v. Parkchester South Condominium, 174 Misc. 2d 92 (1997)
- Parent Document
- Pershad v. Parkchester South Condominium, 174 Misc. 2d 92 (1997)
- Jurisdiction
- New York (state)
- Effective Date
- 1997-08-15
Other Sections in This Document (14)
- Pershad v. Parkchester South Condominium, 174 Misc. 2d 92 (1997)
- Pershad v. Parkchester South Condominium, 174 Misc. 2d 92 (1997)
- Pershad v. Parkchester South Condominium, 174 Misc. 2d 92 (1997)
- Pershad v. Parkchester South Condominium, 174 Misc. 2d 92 (1997)
- Pershad v. Parkchester South Condominium, 174 Misc. 2d 92 (1997)
- Pershad v. Parkchester South Condominium, 174 Misc. 2d 92 (1997)
- Pershad v. Parkchester South Condominium, 174 Misc. 2d 92 (1997)
- Pershad v. Parkchester South Condominium, 174 Misc. 2d 92 (1997)
- Pershad v. Parkchester South Condominium, 174 Misc. 2d 92 (1997)
- Pershad v. Parkchester South Condominium, 174 Misc. 2d 92 (1997)
- Pershad v. Parkchester South Condominium, 174 Misc. 2d 92 (1997)
- Pershad v. Parkchester South Condominium, 174 Misc. 2d 92 (1997)
- Pershad v. Parkchester South Condominium, 174 Misc. 2d 92 (1997)
- Pershad v. Parkchester South Condominium, 174 Misc. 2d 92 (1997)
Full Text
1,016 charsFrisch v Bellmarc Mgt. (supra) is distinguished from the instant proceeding on two important issues. First, in Frisch, petitioner did not occupy the condominium unit. Second, Mr. Frisch sought to exercise rights under Real Property Law § 235-b, warranty of habitability, rather than seeking to enforce the Housing Maintenance Code. In the present proceeding, petitioner Pershad occupies the condominium unit as a dwell*95ing and seeks removal of a specific violation of record pursuant to Housing Maintenance Code § 27-2115 (h). The definition of an owner under Housing Maintenance Code § 27-2004 (a) (45) includes any other person, firm or corporation, directly or indirectly in control of the building. Although this definition is extremely broad, there is a strong indication that it includes the association, and its managing agent. A contrary interpretation is clearly unrealistic. What party or agent would be responsible for maintaining the pipes and other areas of common elements other than the association?