339-347 E. 12th St. LLC v. Ling

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

339-347 E. 12th St. LLC v. Ling

31 Misc. 3d 48

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedMarch 7, 2011

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 31 Misc. 3d 48 (339-347 E. 12th St. LLC v. Ling) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

339-347 E. 12th St. LLC v. Ling, 31 Misc. 3d 48 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

[49]*49OPINION OF THE COURT

Per Curiam.

Order, dated September 2, 2010, affirmed, without costs.

The determination of “prevailing party” status, and with it, of the party or parties entitled to an attorneys’ fee award pursuant to Real Property Law § 234 requires “an initial consideration of the true scope of the dispute litigated, followed by a comparison of what was achieved within that scope” (Excelsior 57th Corp. v Winters, 227 AD2d 146, 147 [1996]). After joinder of issue, but prior to trial, tenant tendered the entire amount ($10,125) of rent arrears sought by landlord for the three-month period (August 2009 — October 2009) covered in the nonpayment petition. Tenant’s fourth affirmative defense alleging “bad faith and retaliation” and fourth counterclaim seeking recovery for “deceptive practices” were dismissed on landlord’s motion. After trial on tenant’s counterclaim for breach of the warranty of habitability, tenant was awarded an abatement of $6,749.75, representing an 11% reduction in rent for the 18-month period from October 2008 through March 2010, but no recovery on his claims for punitive and treble damages. In these circumstances, we agree that the mixed outcome of the litigation was not “substantially favorable” to either side (see Pelli v Connors, 7 AD3d 464 [2004]; Walentas v Johnes, 257 AD2d 352, 354 [1999], lv dismissed 93 NY2d 958 [1999]) and that neither should be accorded the status of a prevailing party.

Schoenfeld, J.E, Hunter, Jr., and Torres, JJ., concur.

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

[49]*49OPINION OF THE COURT

Per Curiam.

Order, dated September 2, 2010, affirmed, without costs.

The determination of “prevailing party” status, and with it, of the party or parties entitled to an attorneys’ fee award pursuant to Real Property Law § 234 requires “an initial consideration of the true scope of the dispute litigated, followed by a comparison of what was achieved within that scope” (Excelsior 57th Corp. v Winters, 227 AD2d 146, 147 [1996]). After joinder of issue, but prior to trial, tenant tendered the entire amount ($10,125) of rent arrears sought by landlord for the three-month period (August 2009 — October 2009) covered in the nonpayment petition. Tenant’s fourth affirmative defense alleging “bad faith and retaliation” and fourth counterclaim seeking recovery for “deceptive practices” were dismissed on landlord’s motion. After trial on tenant’s counterclaim for breach of the warranty of habitability, tenant was awarded an abatement of $6,749.75, representing an 11% reduction in rent for the 18-month period from October 2008 through March 2010, but no recovery on his claims for punitive and treble damages. In these circumstances, we agree that the mixed outcome of the litigation was not “substantially favorable” to either side (see Pelli v Connors, 7 AD3d 464 [2004]; Walentas v Johnes, 257 AD2d 352, 354 [1999], lv dismissed 93 NY2d 958 [1999]) and that neither should be accorded the status of a prevailing party.

Schoenfeld, J.E, Hunter, Jr., and Torres, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

31 Misc. 3d 48, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/339-347-e-12th-st-llc-v-ling-nyappterm-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack