936 Second Avenue, L.P. v. Second Corporate Development, Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

936 Second Avenue, L.P. v. Second Corporate Development, Co.

82 A.D.3d 446, 917 N.Y.2d 865

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

DecidedMarch 3, 2011

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 82 A.D.3d 446 (936 Second Avenue, L.P. v. Second Corporate Development, Co.) 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

936 Second Avenue, L.P. v. Second Corporate Development, Co., 82 A.D.3d 446, 917 N.Y.2d 865 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

There is no basis to disturb the award. The appraisal was made pursuant to the procedure set forth in the parties’ lease. The appraisers averred that they complied with the Court of Appeals’ order that the net lease must be taken into account when valuing the demised premises (see 936 Second Ave. L.P. v Second Corporate Dev. Co., Inc., 10 NY3d 628 [2008]). The motion court properly determined that there was no evidence of fraud, bias or bad faith in the appraisal process. Nor was the award irrational. Absent such evidence, “the appraisal should stand” (Rice v Ritz Assoc., 88 AD2d 513, 514 [1982], affd 58 NY2d 923 [1983]). Concur — Mazzarelli, J.E, Acosta, DeGrasse, Richter and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.

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

There is no basis to disturb the award. The appraisal was made pursuant to the procedure set forth in the parties’ lease. The appraisers averred that they complied with the Court of Appeals’ order that the net lease must be taken into account when valuing the demised premises (see 936 Second Ave. L.P. v Second Corporate Dev. Co., Inc., 10 NY3d 628 [2008]). The motion court properly determined that there was no evidence of fraud, bias or bad faith in the appraisal process. Nor was the award irrational. Absent such evidence, “the appraisal should stand” (Rice v Ritz Assoc., 88 AD2d 513, 514 [1982], affd 58 NY2d 923 [1983]). Concur — Mazzarelli, J.E, Acosta, DeGrasse, Richter and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

82 A.D.3d 446, 917 N.Y.2d 865, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/936-second-avenue-lp-v-second-corporate-development-co-nyappdiv-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack