Majority
—Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly denied defendant’s motion for partial summary judgment dismissing plaintiffs’ causes of action pursuant to General Municipal Law § 205-e. The allegation that defendant violated 6 NYCRR 211.2 is a sufficient predicate for an action pursuant to General Municipal Law § 205-e (see, Ruotolo v State of New York, 83 NY2d 248 ; Phalen v Kane, 192 AD2d 186 ; Costantini v Benedetto, 190 AD2d 888 ). We decline to adopt the reasoning of Supreme Court in Ramos v Doesn’t Matter Realty Corp. (153 Mise 2d 80) that a statute or regulation that merely codifies a common-law duty cannot serve as a predicate for a General Municipal Law § 205-e cause of action. In any event, 6 NYCRR 211.2 is not a mere codification of common-law nuisance.
We reject defendant’s further argument that 6 NYCRR
Cases cited
- Ruotolo v. State 83 NY2d 248 p. 1022
- Phalen v. Kane 192 AD2d 186 p. 1022
- Costantini v. Benedetto 190 AD2d 888 p. 1022
- Delford Industries, Inc. v. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation 126 Misc 2d 355 p. 1023
- Ouimet v. Ouimet 186 AD2d 1002 p. 1023