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
754 charsGranting a dismissal of this proceeding serves no purpose at all. Where hot water pipes directly connected to an apartment burst and cause severe water and property damage to a condominium unit owner or a cooperative tenant, surely it is inconceivable and illogical to argue that the unit owner would be responsible for correcting the problem which is solely with the maintenance and control of the building association. If petitioner’s apartment was located directly below a building’s swimming pool under the same set of facts presented herein with the same resulting water damage in petitioner’s unit, would it serve any purpose to advise the condominium unit *96owner that the responsibility for remedying such situation should be placed at his door?