220 West 42 Associates v. Ronbet Newmark Co.

53 A.D.2d 829, 385 N.Y.S.2d 304, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13653
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJuly 6, 1976
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 53 A.D.2d 829 (220 West 42 Associates v. Ronbet Newmark Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
220 West 42 Associates v. Ronbet Newmark Co., 53 A.D.2d 829, 385 N.Y.S.2d 304, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13653 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1976).

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County entered January 19, 1976, granting judgment of foreclosure and sale to the plaintiff, subject to existing mortgages and to the leasehold of the defendant, unanimously modified on the law to the extent of granting the judgment only subject to the existing mortgages and otherwise affirmed. Appellant shall recover of respondent Leo David Cohen $60 costs and disbursements of this appeal. Two-twenty West 42 Associates (Associates) purchased the premises in question in 1966, at which time Leo David Cohen was a tenant therein under a lease agreement due to expire in 1986. In 1968, Associates sold the premises to Ronbet Newmark Company (Ronbet). Ronbet took the premises subject to the existing mortgages and also executed a purchase-money mortgage with Associates as the mortgagee. Ronbet defaulted in payment and Associates instituted this foreclosure proceeding. Cohen’s position is that his leasehold should be held superior to those of Associates’ rights as a mortgagee. Trial Term granted foreclosure but found that Cohen’s leasehold was not to be extinguished by the foreclosure. We disagree. The lease agreement contained a clause which expressly subordinated the leasehold to any existing or future mortgages on the premises. The clause containing a covenant of quiet enjoyment was also explicitly subordinate to all mortgages on the premises. It is clear, therefore, that the lease in question is subordinate to [830]*830the rights of the mortgagees, and we have modified the judgment accordingly. Concur—Markewich, J. P., Murphy, Lupiano, Capozzoli and Lane, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Dishi & Sons v. Bay Condos LLC
510 B.R. 696 (S.D. New York, 2014)
Eagle Admixtures Ltd. v. Hannon
867 P.2d 111 (Colorado Court of Appeals, 1993)
Matter of Village Rathskeller, Inc.
147 B.R. 665 (S.D. New York, 1992)
In Re Neuman
92 B.R. 598 (S.D. New York, 1988)
In Re Kizzac Management Corp.
44 B.R. 496 (S.D. New York, 1984)
Kline v. Khan
20 V.I. 327 (Virgin Islands, 1983)
United States v. Bedford Associates
491 F. Supp. 851 (S.D. New York, 1980)
Rohab Co. v. Rijan Delicatessen, Inc.
54 A.D.2d 663 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1976)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
53 A.D.2d 829, 385 N.Y.S.2d 304, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13653, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/220-west-42-associates-v-ronbet-newmark-co-nyappdiv-1976.