352 Seventh Avenue Associates v. Wasserman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

352 Seventh Avenue Associates v. Wasserman

248 A.D.2d 244, 671 N.Y.S.2d 216, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2560

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

DecidedMarch 17, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 248 A.D.2d 244 (352 Seventh Avenue Associates v. Wasserman) 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

352 Seventh Avenue Associates v. Wasserman, 248 A.D.2d 244, 671 N.Y.S.2d 216, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2560 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Ira Gammerman, J.), entered March 24, 1997, which granted defendants’ cross motion for summary judgment to the extent of declaring that defendants’ obligations to plaintiff pursuant to a joint venture agreement terminated on June 14, 1993, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

We agree with the motion court that defendants’ obligation under the subject joint venture agreement terminated when, by reason of a pending foreclosure proceeding in which a receiver had been appointed, plaintiff lost control of the premises that had been its sole significant contribution to the venture and, as a consequence, became unable to perform further under the agreement. Plaintiff’s argument that defendants acted in bad faith when, in an attempt to protect their investment, they entered into a lease with the receiver is without merit.

Concur — Ellerin, J. P., Wallach, Rubin, Tom and Saxe, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Ira Gammerman, J.), entered March 24, 1997, which granted defendants’ cross motion for summary judgment to the extent of declaring that defendants’ obligations to plaintiff pursuant to a joint venture agreement terminated on June 14, 1993, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

We agree with the motion court that defendants’ obligation under the subject joint venture agreement terminated when, by reason of a pending foreclosure proceeding in which a receiver had been appointed, plaintiff lost control of the premises that had been its sole significant contribution to the venture and, as a consequence, became unable to perform further under the agreement. Plaintiff’s argument that defendants acted in bad faith when, in an attempt to protect their investment, they entered into a lease with the receiver is without merit.

Concur — Ellerin, J. P., Wallach, Rubin, Tom and Saxe, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

248 A.D.2d 244, 671 N.Y.S.2d 216, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2560, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/352-seventh-avenue-associates-v-wasserman-nyappdiv-1998.