You are here: / / QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER TENANT ENTITLED TO RESCIND LEASE BECAUSE CERTIFICATE...
,

QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER TENANT ENTITLED TO RESCIND LEASE BECAUSE CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY PROHIBITED TENANT’S USE OF THE PROPERTY FOR COMMERCIAL PURPOSES.

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Tom, reversing Supreme Court, determined questions of fact precluded the granting of landlord's cross-motion for summary judgment dismissing plaintiff-tenant's rescission action (alleging impossibility, fraud, misrepresentation and frustration of purpose). By the terms of the lease the tenant was prohibited from any use of the premises which violated the certificate of occupancy (CO). The lease required tenant to use the premises solely for a commercial purpose (executive recruiting firm). However the CO required that the premises be used solely as residential property. The First Department distinguished the line of cases which enforced leases where the only objection to the lease was a problem with the CO:

… [T]here are issues of fact as to whether plaintiff's cause of action for rescission can be proved. While the purpose of the lease was for the space to be used as an office and plaintiff is in fact prohibited from any other use, the lease also prohibits plaintiff from using the premises in violation of the CO, and the CO itself prohibits commercial use of the space. Therefore, plaintiff properly raises the excuse of impossibility of performance as its ability to perform under the lease was destroyed by law … . Absent defendants' willingness to alter the CO it was impossible for plaintiff to perform its obligations under the lease, and the evidence raises an issue of fact as to whether defendants were willing to cooperate in this regard. * * *

… [T]here is an issue of fact as to whether the lease should be terminated on the ground of frustration of purpose. In order to invoke this defense, “the frustrated purpose must be so completely the basis of the contract that, as both parties understood, without it, the transaction would have made little sense”… . Jack Kelly Partners LLC v Zegelstein, 2016 NY Slip Op 03820, 1st Dept 5-12-16

LANDLORD-TENANT (QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER TENANT ENTITLED TO RESCIND LEASE BECAUSE CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY PROHIBITED USE OF THE PROPERTY FOR COMMERCIAL PURPOSES)/CONTRACT LAW (LEASES, QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER TENANT ENTITLED TO RESCIND LEASE BECAUSE CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY PROHIBITED USE OF THE PROPERTY FOR COMMERCIAL PURPOSES)/RESCISSION (LEASES, QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER TENANT ENTITLED TO RESCIND LEASE BECAUSE CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY PROHIBITED USE OF THE PROPERTY FOR COMMERCIAL PURPOSES)

/by
You might also like
EMERGENCY DOCTRINE DOES NOT USUALLY APPLY IN REAR-END COLLISION CASES, VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW RE FOLLOWING TOO CLOSELY CAN BE VIOLATED EVEN WHEN THERE IS NO COLLISION, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SUDDEN-STOP BUS-PASSENGER INJURY CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).
PETITIONER WAS ENTITLED TO A HEARING ON A TEMPORARY ORDER OF PROTECTION (TOP) WHICH BARRED HER FROM HER OWN APARTMENT WHERE HER CHILDREN LIVED; THE APPEAL WAS HEARD AS AN EXCEPTION TO THE MOOTNESS DOCTRINE (FIRST DEPT).
Case Should Not Have Been Dismissed on Forum Non Conveniens Grounds—Analytical Criteria Explained
THE DENIAL OF DEFENDANT’S PETITION FOR A DE NOVO JURY TRIAL TO DETERMINE WHETHER HE IS MENTALLY ILL IS APPEALABLE AS OF RIGHT AND THE PETITION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, AN EXCEPTION TO THE MOOTNESS DOCTRINE APPLIED AND DEFENSE COUNSEL’S STATEMENTS AND THE DEFENSE EXPERT’S TESTIMONY AT THE HEARING TO THE EFFECT DEFENDANT WAS MENTALLY ILL DID NOT CONSTITUTE A WAIVER OF THE DEFENDANT’S RIGHT TO A DE NOVO TRIAL (FIRST DEPT).
PRESENCE OF POLICE OFFICERS AND OFFICER’S STATEMENT TO THE VICTIM DID NOT RENDER THE SHOWUP INDENTIFICATION UNDULY SUGGESTIVE.
CROSS-RACIAL IDENTIFICATION JURY INSTRUCTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GIVEN, ERROR HARMLESS HOWEVER (FIRST DEPT).
EASEMENT COVENANT CONCERNING A THREE INCH ENCROACHMENT WAS A PERMITTED EXCEPTION UNDER THE REAL ESTATE PURCHASE AGREEMENT AND COULD NOT SERVE AS A GROUND FOR DEMONSTRATING SELLER WAS NOT READY, WILLING AND ABLE TO SELL THE PROPERTY ON THE TIME OF THE ESSENCE DATE, SELLER ENTITLED TO SECURITY DEPOSIT AND ATTORNEY’S FEES (FIRST DEPT).
THERE WAS A FIDUCIARY RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE PARTIES AS PARTNERS AND CO-OWNERS OF A BUSINESS, GIVING RISE TO AN ABSOLUTE RIGHT TO AN ACCOUNTING, NOTWITHSTANDING THE EXISTENCE OF AN ADEQUATE REMEDY AT LAW (FIRST DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

Copyright © 2022 New York Appellate Digest, LLC
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

HEARING OFFICER IMPROPERLY LIMITED THE NUMBER OF WITNESS PETITIONER COULD CALL,... PISTOL PERMIT PROPERLY REVOKED BY FAMILY COURT.