From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Young v. GSL Enterprises, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Mar 6, 1997
237 A.D.2d 119 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)

Opinion

March 6, 1997.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward Lehner, J.), entered October 17, 1995, which, inter alia, granted defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the third and fourth causes of action, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Before: Murphy, P.J., Rosenberger, Rubin and Mazzarelli, JJ.


The IAS Court properly dismissed the third cause of action for breach of the warranty of habitability since Plaintiff's never paid rent during the relevant period of time and defendant was not seeking to recover such rent ( see, Elkman v Southgate Owners Corp., 233 AD2d 104).

Plaintiff's' fourth cause of action, whether deemed to allege intentional or negligent infliction of emotional distress, was properly dismissed. The failure to have doormen or lobby personnel in the building cannot be said to constitute conduct "so extreme and outrageous as to transcend the bounds of decency and be regarded as atrocious and intolerable in a civilized society" ( Stanley v Smith, 183 AD2d 675, 676), and there was an absence of proof of injury or medical support for the claim ( East End Temple v Silverman, 199 AD2d 94, 95; Callas v Eisenberg, 192 AD2d 349, 350).


Summaries of

Young v. GSL Enterprises, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Mar 6, 1997
237 A.D.2d 119 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)
Case details for

Young v. GSL Enterprises, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:B. YOUNG et al., Appellants, v. GSL ENTERPRISES, INC., Respondent

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: Mar 6, 1997

Citations

237 A.D.2d 119 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)
654 N.Y.S.2d 24

Citing Cases

Taggart v. Costabile

; Ferrara v. Galluchio, 5 N.Y.2d 16, 176 N.Y.S.2d 996, 152 N.E.2d 249). However, case law from this Court,…

Gist v. State

33. In pressing that argument, however, the STATE is ignoring Claimant's burden to demonstrate that the…