805 Third Avenue Co. v. Ernst & Young LLP

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

805 Third Avenue Co. v. Ernst & Young LLP

305 A.D.2d 193, 759 N.Y.S.2d 459, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5354

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

DecidedMay 13, 2003

StatusPublished

This text of 305 A.D.2d 193 (805 Third Avenue Co. v. Ernst & Young LLP) 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

805 Third Avenue Co. v. Ernst & Young LLP, 305 A.D.2d 193, 759 N.Y.S.2d 459, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5354 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

Order and judgment (one [194]*194paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Herman Cahn, J.), entered October 8, 2002, which, in a turnover proceeding to enforce a judgment for rent arrears, inter alia, denied the application and dismissed the petition, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Petitioner landlord claims that respondent subtenant abandoned the premises owing respondent tenant rent. It appears that at all relevant times, the tenant was wholly owned by the subtenant and under its complete control; that petitioner’s lease with the tenant permitted a subletting to the subtenant, identified by name and characterized as the “Permitted Occupant”; and that such lease also provided that “[n] either the individual executing this lease * * * nor any other person or party, whether disclosed or undisclosed, shall have any personal liability or obligation by reason of any default by Tenant or any of Tenant’s covenants and agreements contained in this lease.” In view of this broad nonrecourse clause, the application must be denied regardless of whether the subtenant left the premises owing the tenant rent. Concur — Buckley, P.J., Andrias, Saxe, Lerner and Marlow, JJ.

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

Order and judgment (one [194]*194paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Herman Cahn, J.), entered October 8, 2002, which, in a turnover proceeding to enforce a judgment for rent arrears, inter alia, denied the application and dismissed the petition, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Petitioner landlord claims that respondent subtenant abandoned the premises owing respondent tenant rent. It appears that at all relevant times, the tenant was wholly owned by the subtenant and under its complete control; that petitioner’s lease with the tenant permitted a subletting to the subtenant, identified by name and characterized as the “Permitted Occupant”; and that such lease also provided that “[n] either the individual executing this lease * * * nor any other person or party, whether disclosed or undisclosed, shall have any personal liability or obligation by reason of any default by Tenant or any of Tenant’s covenants and agreements contained in this lease.” In view of this broad nonrecourse clause, the application must be denied regardless of whether the subtenant left the premises owing the tenant rent. Concur — Buckley, P.J., Andrias, Saxe, Lerner and Marlow, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

305 A.D.2d 193, 759 N.Y.S.2d 459, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5354, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/805-third-avenue-co-v-ernst-young-llp-nyappdiv-2003.