A real estate purchase and renovation becomes a court case. This is what is happening to Milanoin the neighborhood CityLifewhere the work started in the apartment of Eros Ramazzotti have given rise to ato civil litigation con the neighbor downstairswhich asks for a compensation higher than 200 thousand euros for the damages suffered. The story is reconstructed by Corriere della Serawhich reports the contents of the documents and positions of the parties involved.
According to reports, it all began in October 2024, when Ramazzotti purchased an apartment in CityLife and moved his residence there. Immediately afterwards, renovation works began which, according to the version of the neighbor Paolo Rossi, a 59-year-old Genoese auditor, would have had direct consequences on his home. Rossi’s lawyers claim that these were particularly invasive interventions, described as “work”literally devastating which seriously damaged the apartment belowIn particular, the complete demolition of the internal wallsthe removal of doors and systems and, above all, the elimination of floors and screeds “resorting to an improper and massive use of pneumatic hammers”.
In addition to “abnormal noise emissions and significant vibrations”, the decisive moment arrives on December 4, 2024, when a collapse occurs in Rossi’s apartment. The ceiling of a gym and sauna area completely detaches and falls to the ground. Only by chance, the documents report, the owners were not at home at the time. After the episode, municipal police and firefighters intervene. In the police report, cited by Courierwe read that the removal of the floor in the apartment above “may have been the cause of the ddetachment of the ceiling damaging the underlying property“. The area is cordoned off with red and white tape to limit access, deemed “unsafe”. According to Rossi, initially the company appointed by Ramazzotti expressed its willingness to stop the works and check the damage, but subsequently the interventions were resumed, again with the use of pneumatic hammers, despite the collapse already happened. Hence the decision to turn to the authorities and start a dispute.
In January 2025 the incident was formally revealed “challenged against Ramazzotti and the contractor”. The artist’s defence, entrusted to the lawyer Antonio Cacciato, responds by defining the party’s expert report as “in itself not admissible and not acceptable also because it is generic, formed unilaterally and not verified” and adding that it “shows an unmotivated aggressive approachivo, which certainly makes communication between the subjects involved less easy”.
In the summons, Rossi’s lawyers quantify the compensation requested “in over 200 thousand euros“, producing further technical reports which would attribute the damage with certainty “to the renovation works” carried out in Ramazzotti’s apartment. On the other hand, the responsibility for the collapse is instead traced back to “presumed hidden defects of the property”. The Milanese judge Carlo Di Cataldo set a new conciliation attempt for January 19th. The technical consultant appointed by the court will have to file a preliminary report by February 9th and the definitive one by April 10th, while the parties will be able to present observations until March 11th.
The artist’s manager, Gaetano Puglisi, responded by letting it be known that: “What we are learning today from the press is an incomplete and misleading version which does not represent the situation in which the properties of Dr. Rossi and Ramazzotti find themselves, who, to date, is the owner of the only unusable apartment in the building. The proceedings before the Court are ongoing and in this judgment many other parties are involved, in addition to Dr. Rossi and Ramazzotti, precisely forr verify what the possible responsibilities are and who they are compared to what happened. According to our technicians, the injury that Dr. Rossi may have suffered amounts to an amount far and substantially lower than what was reported in the press headlines. Naturally, the technical consultant appointed by the Court will verify the objective amount, with a technical and balanced judgment in which he trusts. It is unfortunate that we are trying to draw conclusions, which only the ongoing judgment will be able to give, taking advantage of the media coverage of the story and thus continuing to make more difficult a dialogue for which Ramazzotti has always been available despite the total absence of his direct responsibilities“The matter therefore remains entrusted to the technical investigations and decisions of the judge, who will have to establish whether the collapse was caused by the renovation works or by pre-existing structural problems of the building.
Related News :