698-700 Amsterdam Corp. v. Morfesis Realty Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

698-700 Amsterdam Corp. v. Morfesis Realty Corp.

273 A.D.2d 31, 708 N.Y.S.2d 865, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6353

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

DecidedJune 6, 2000

StatusPublished

This text of 273 A.D.2d 31 (698-700 Amsterdam Corp. v. Morfesis Realty Corp.) 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

698-700 Amsterdam Corp. v. Morfesis Realty Corp., 273 A.D.2d 31, 708 N.Y.S.2d 865, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6353 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol Huff, J.), entered on or about January 8, 1999, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the brief, denied plaintiff’s motion for an order rescinding a residential lease agreement entered into by an interim receiver with defendant tenant, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff’s appellate contention that the lease agreement entered into between the receiver and defendant tenant should be rescinded on the ground of mutual mistake is unpreserved and we decline to reach it since neither the receiver nor defendant tenant had a full and fair opportunity to respond to plaintiff’s claim, that the lease between the receiver and defendant tenant was entered into upon the mistaken belief that there was a registered stabilized rent for the subject apartment. Concur — Williams, J. P., Ellerin, Wallach and Rubin, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol Huff, J.), entered on or about January 8, 1999, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the brief, denied plaintiff’s motion for an order rescinding a residential lease agreement entered into by an interim receiver with defendant tenant, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff’s appellate contention that the lease agreement entered into between the receiver and defendant tenant should be rescinded on the ground of mutual mistake is unpreserved and we decline to reach it since neither the receiver nor defendant tenant had a full and fair opportunity to respond to plaintiff’s claim, that the lease between the receiver and defendant tenant was entered into upon the mistaken belief that there was a registered stabilized rent for the subject apartment. Concur — Williams, J. P., Ellerin, Wallach and Rubin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

273 A.D.2d 31, 708 N.Y.S.2d 865, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6353, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/698-700-amsterdam-corp-v-morfesis-realty-corp-nyappdiv-2000.