In Peri v City of New York , Peri's three children suffered lead-poisoning injuries while occupying a city-owned apartment. After she filed her personal injury case, the City moved for summary judgment -- seeking the lawsuit's dismissal -- citing the absence of any liability since Peri's sister was the sole tenant-of-record and the City had lacked notice that any children lived in the unit.
Affidavits by Peri and her sister were submitted in opposition to the motion. And despite the City's characterization of those sworn statements as "self-serving and a "crafted and transparent attempt to raise a triable issue of fact," the Bronx County Supreme Court declined to end the case.
On appeal. the Appellate Division, First Department, relied on Peri's claim that the building's super knew of her occupancy of the unit. The majority found this to comprise "evidence that the City was aware of the plaintiffs' presence on the premises," sufficient to create an issue of fact and warrant a trial. Interestingly, Peri admitted that she never had a conversation with the landlord, the super, or anyone else who worked at the building, "for any reason."
Two dissenters were of the opinion that Peri's visits to her sister's apartment were insufficient to establish residence and would have granted the City's motion for summary judgment.
Should be interesting to see what the Court of Appeals can pull out of this one.
To view a copy of the Appellate Division's case, please use this link: Peri v City of New York