265 Fordham Real Estate Corp. v. Raymond Heettener Associates

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

265 Fordham Real Estate Corp. v. Raymond Heettener Associates

223 A.D.2d 429, 636 N.Y.S.2d 1008, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 326

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedJanuary 18, 1996

StatusPublished

This text of 223 A.D.2d 429 (265 Fordham Real Estate Corp. v. Raymond Heettener Associates) 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

265 Fordham Real Estate Corp. v. Raymond Heettener Associates, 223 A.D.2d 429, 636 N.Y.S.2d 1008, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 326 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Luis Gonzalez, J.), entered June 29, 1995, which, insofar as appealed from, denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment on their first counterclaim and dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiffs raise triable issues of fact, including whether the alterations made by the tenant were structural, whether defendants could have reasonably withheld consent to these alterations and whether the parties acted in good faith prior to closing. Accordingly, summary judgment was properly denied. Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Wallach, Rubin, Nardelli and Mazzarelli, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Luis Gonzalez, J.), entered June 29, 1995, which, insofar as appealed from, denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment on their first counterclaim and dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiffs raise triable issues of fact, including whether the alterations made by the tenant were structural, whether defendants could have reasonably withheld consent to these alterations and whether the parties acted in good faith prior to closing. Accordingly, summary judgment was properly denied. Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Wallach, Rubin, Nardelli and Mazzarelli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

223 A.D.2d 429, 636 N.Y.S.2d 1008, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 326, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/265-fordham-real-estate-corp-v-raymond-heettener-associates-nyappdiv-1996.