Bank of New York & Trust Co. v. Harjo Realty Corp.

New York Supreme Court

Bank of New York & Trust Co. v. Harjo Realty Corp.

145 Misc. 821, 260 N.Y.S. 248, 1932 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1581

DecidedOctober 24, 1932

StatusPublished

This text of 145 Misc. 821 (Bank of New York & Trust Co. v. Harjo Realty Corp.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bank of New York & Trust Co. v. Harjo Realty Corp., 145 Misc. 821, 260 N.Y.S. 248, 1932 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1581 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1932).

Pincite

Opinion

Cohn, J.

As there appears to be no claim or evidence of fraud in the lease which the tenant executed with the former landlord, the receiver may not disregard the tenancy. The lease is valid unless terminated by a sale under judgment of foreclosure. The receiver pendente lite may only collect such amount as tenant is obligated to pay under the lease. (Prudence Co. v. 160 West Seventy-third St. Corp., 235 App. Div. 543; Klasko Finance Corp. v. Belleaire Hotel Corp., 257 N. Y. 1, 4.) The decision of Mr. Justice Hammer at Special Term, Bronx county, in Cohan v. 908 Kelly St. Realty Co. (N. Y. L. J. Oct. 20, 1932), one in which the receiver elected to iiisaffirm the lease and accept a reduced sum as the reasonable value of use and occupation, is a situation quite different from the one here.

The motion, therefore, is denied, with leave to renew upon a showing that the lease herein was fraudulently made.

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

Cohn, J.

As there appears to be no claim or evidence of fraud in the lease which the tenant executed with the former landlord, the receiver may not disregard the tenancy. The lease is valid unless terminated by a sale under judgment of foreclosure. The receiver pendente lite may only collect such amount as tenant is obligated to pay under the lease. (Prudence Co. v. 160 West Seventy-third St. Corp., 235 App. Div. 543; Klasko Finance Corp. v. Belleaire Hotel Corp., 257 N. Y. 1, 4.) The decision of Mr. Justice Hammer at Special Term, Bronx county, in Cohan v. 908 Kelly St. Realty Co. (N. Y. L. J. Oct. 20, 1932), one in which the receiver elected to iiisaffirm the lease and accept a reduced sum as the reasonable value of use and occupation, is a situation quite different from the one here.

The motion, therefore, is denied, with leave to renew upon a showing that the lease herein was fraudulently made.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

145 Misc. 821, 260 N.Y.S. 248, 1932 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1581, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bank-of-new-york-trust-co-v-harjo-realty-corp-nysupct-1932.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack