610 West 142nd Street Owners Corp. v. Braxton

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

610 West 142nd Street Owners Corp. v. Braxton

140 Misc. 2d 826, 535 N.Y.S.2d 870, 1988 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 750

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedSeptember 9, 1988

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 140 Misc. 2d 826 (610 West 142nd Street Owners Corp. v. Braxton) 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

610 West 142nd Street Owners Corp. v. Braxton, 140 Misc. 2d 826, 535 N.Y.S.2d 870, 1988 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 750 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Per Curiam.

Order entered October 29, 1987 modified by severing ten[827]*827ants’ counterclaims to the extent said counterclaims seek recovery for damages resulting from an alleged burglary in the subject premises; as modified, order affirmed, without costs.

While tenants may, in this nonpayment proceeding, counterclaim for damages sustained by reason of landlord’s breach of the implied warranty of habitability, the proper measure of those contract damages is “the difference between the fair market value of the premises if they had been as warranted, as measured by the rent reserved under the lease, and the value of the premises during the period of the breach” (Park W. Mgt. Corp. v Mitchell, 47 NY2d 316, 329). To the extent tenants also seek damages traditionally within the scope of tort liability, those claims are more appropriately tried outside the limited sphere of the landlord-tenant proceeding (see, Curry v New York City Hous. Auth., 77 AD2d 534; N Town Roosevelt Assoc. v Muller, NYLJ, Oct. 27, 1980, at 6, col 4 [App Term, 1st Dept]).

Ostrau, P. J., Sandifer and Miller, JJ., concur.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

Per Curiam.

Order entered October 29, 1987 modified by severing ten[827]*827ants’ counterclaims to the extent said counterclaims seek recovery for damages resulting from an alleged burglary in the subject premises; as modified, order affirmed, without costs.

While tenants may, in this nonpayment proceeding, counterclaim for damages sustained by reason of landlord’s breach of the implied warranty of habitability, the proper measure of those contract damages is “the difference between the fair market value of the premises if they had been as warranted, as measured by the rent reserved under the lease, and the value of the premises during the period of the breach” (Park W. Mgt. Corp. v Mitchell, 47 NY2d 316, 329). To the extent tenants also seek damages traditionally within the scope of tort liability, those claims are more appropriately tried outside the limited sphere of the landlord-tenant proceeding (see, Curry v New York City Hous. Auth., 77 AD2d 534; N Town Roosevelt Assoc. v Muller, NYLJ, Oct. 27, 1980, at 6, col 4 [App Term, 1st Dept]).

Ostrau, P. J., Sandifer and Miller, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

140 Misc. 2d 826, 535 N.Y.S.2d 870, 1988 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 750, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/610-west-142nd-street-owners-corp-v-braxton-nyappterm-1988.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack