You are here: / / QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE SALES COUNTER AND DISPLAY UNIT INSTALLED AT...
,

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE SALES COUNTER AND DISPLAY UNIT INSTALLED AT THE OUTSET OF THE LEASE WAS A TRADE FIXTURE WHICH COULD BE REMOVED BY THE TENANT OR A PERMANENT FIXTURE WHICH COULD NOT BE REMOVED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined there was a question of fact whether the sales counter and display unit installed on the leased premises was a permanent or trade fixture. Supreme Court had ruled the counter and display unit was a trade fixture which was properly removed by the tenant at the end of the lease:

… [T]he defendants [tenants] failed to establish as a matter of law that the sales counter and customer display unit is a trade fixture that they properly removed from the premises at the end of the lease term. Contrary to the defendants’ contention, the fact that Medi-Fair [tenant], pursuant to the express and agreed upon terms of the lease regarding the tenant fit-up, paid extra for Wallkill [landlord] to construct and install the customized sales counter and customer display unit does not, under the circumstances, make it a trade fixture as a matter of law … . Rather, read together, the articles of the lease pertaining to the tenant fit-up, alterations, and redelivery of the premises at the end of the lease term raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the parties intended items such as the sales counter and customer display unit annexed to the premises by Wallkill [landlord] as part of the initial, interior construction and tenant fit-up, as compared with any post-occupancy alterations and/or additions of fixtures to the premises by Medi-Fair [tenant], to be permanent fixtures of the premises. Wallkill Med. Dev., LLC v Medi-Fair, Inc., 2022 NY Slip Op 00899, Second Dept 2-9-22

 

You might also like
ALTHOUGH THE COMPLAINT STATED CAUSES OF ACTION FOR NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATION AND FRAUD, THE JUDICIARY LAW 487 CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED BECAUSE IT WAS NOT ALLEGED THE DECEIT OCCURRED DURING A JUDICIAL PROCEEDING (SECOND DEPT).
JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE REFUSED TO SIGN A PROPOSED ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE FOR DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO VACATE A DEFAULT JUDGMENT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION (SECOND DEPT).
CPLR 1021 DEFINES THE PROCEDURE FOR SUBSTITUTING A REPRESENTATIVE FOR A DECEASED PARTY; HERE THAT PROCEDURE WAS NOT FOLLOWED; THE JUDGE’S SUA SPONTE ORDER SUBSTITUTING THE EXECUTOR WAS A NULLITY (SECOND DEPT).
Court’s Failure to Share Entire Contents of Note from Jury Constituted a Mode of Proceedings Error Requiring Reversal
Defendants Not Liable for Assault by a Contractor-Security Guard—No Showing Defendants Were Aware of Security Guard’s Propensity for Violence—Security Guard’s Actions Were Outside the Scope of Employment
Operating Agreements Created a Limited Liability Company In Which Members Did Not Share Control of the Development Project or Responsibility for Losses/No Fiduciary Duty Arises from a Limited-Liability-Company Relationship, As It Does from a Partnership or Joint Venture
Person May Have More that One Residence for Insurance Purposes
PLAINTIFF ALLEGEDLY INJURED HIS HAND WHEN HE SAW HIS DAUGHTER START TO SLIP OUT OF A SWING ON A SCHOOL PLAYGROUND AND STOPPED THE SWING; THE ALLEGEDLY DEFECTIVE SWING WAS NOT THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF PLAINTIFF’S INJURY; THE COURT NOTED THAT THE ASSUMPTION OF THE RISK DOCTRINE DID NOT APPLY TO THIS SCENARIO (SECOND DEPT).

Categories

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

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

THE AFFIDAVITS DID NOT PROVE THE RPAPL 1304 WAS ACTUALLY MAILED TO DEFENDANTS;... FATHER ALLEGED CHANGES IN HIS WORK SCHEDULE ALLOWED MORE TIME FOR PARENTAL ACCESS...