90 Washington Rest Associates, LLC v. JDM Washington Street, LLC

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

90 Washington Rest Associates, LLC v. JDM Washington Street, LLC

91 A.D.3d 501, 937 N.Y.2d 24

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

DecidedJanuary 17, 2012

StatusPublished

This text of 91 A.D.3d 501 (90 Washington Rest Associates, LLC v. JDM Washington Street, LLC) 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

90 Washington Rest Associates, LLC v. JDM Washington Street, LLC, 91 A.D.3d 501, 937 N.Y.2d 24 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

The motion court improperly granted defendant summary judgment dismissing plaintiff’s claims for damages from the interruption or loss of business. Triable issues exist as to whether defendant performed any work on the premises. Furthermore, there are triable issues as to whether, if the landlord did perform work, such work was diligently prosecuted, and that the work necessitated the scaffolding.

Plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment on its claim that between August 2008 and August 2010, defendant violated the lease provision requiring that any scaffolding not obstruct the signage for plaintiffs restaurant. The record shows that during the relevant time period the scaffolding obstructed the view of the subject signage and the testimony of the building owner failed to address the specific lease requirement that scaffolding not block the signage. Concur — Tom, J.E, Catterson, DeGrasse, Richter and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.

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

The motion court improperly granted defendant summary judgment dismissing plaintiff’s claims for damages from the interruption or loss of business. Triable issues exist as to whether defendant performed any work on the premises. Furthermore, there are triable issues as to whether, if the landlord did perform work, such work was diligently prosecuted, and that the work necessitated the scaffolding.

Plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment on its claim that between August 2008 and August 2010, defendant violated the lease provision requiring that any scaffolding not obstruct the signage for plaintiffs restaurant. The record shows that during the relevant time period the scaffolding obstructed the view of the subject signage and the testimony of the building owner failed to address the specific lease requirement that scaffolding not block the signage. Concur — Tom, J.E, Catterson, DeGrasse, Richter and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

91 A.D.3d 501, 937 N.Y.2d 24, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/90-washington-rest-associates-llc-v-jdm-washington-street-llc-nyappdiv-2012.