Banque Nationale de Paris v. 1567 Broadway Ownership Associates

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Banque Nationale de Paris v. 1567 Broadway Ownership Associates

202 A.D.2d 251, 608 N.Y.S.2d 635, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2283

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

DecidedMarch 10, 1994

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 202 A.D.2d 251 (Banque Nationale de Paris v. 1567 Broadway Ownership Associates) 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

Banque Nationale de Paris v. 1567 Broadway Ownership Associates, 202 A.D.2d 251, 608 N.Y.S.2d 635, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2283 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Alfred Toker, J.), entered September 17, 1993, which in an action to foreclose a mortgage, granted the motion by the court-appointed receiver to compel defendant-appellant to attorn to him and pay to his managing agent all rents and other charges due and owing under the lease between defendants 1567 Broadway Owner[252]*252ship Associates and Shark Leasing Corp., unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The IAS Court correctly determined that appellant’s "sublease” with Shark Leasing Corp., under which the latter demised its entire interest in the entire premises for the entire time remaining on the prime lease, constituted an assignment (Mann Theatres Corp. v Mid-Island Shopping Plaza Co., 94 AD2d 466, 472, affd 62 NY2d 930), notwithstanding a contingent right of re-entry (Nedick’s Stores v T.S.N.Y. Realty Corp., 156 AD2d 123, 124). In any event, no provision in the prime lease authorizes a setoff for the moneys allegedly expended to renovate and improve the premises as against the $100,000 minimum monthly rent specified in the prime lease. In fact, it expressly prohibits the same. Whatever claims appellant may have against Shark under the sublease can be pursued in a separate legal action (see, Stewart v Long Is. R. R. Co., 102 NY 601).

We have considered appellant’s other contentions and find them to be without merit. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Carro, Ellerin, Wallach and Nardelli, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Alfred Toker, J.), entered September 17, 1993, which in an action to foreclose a mortgage, granted the motion by the court-appointed receiver to compel defendant-appellant to attorn to him and pay to his managing agent all rents and other charges due and owing under the lease between defendants 1567 Broadway Owner[252]*252ship Associates and Shark Leasing Corp., unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The IAS Court correctly determined that appellant’s "sublease” with Shark Leasing Corp., under which the latter demised its entire interest in the entire premises for the entire time remaining on the prime lease, constituted an assignment (Mann Theatres Corp. v Mid-Island Shopping Plaza Co., 94 AD2d 466, 472, affd 62 NY2d 930), notwithstanding a contingent right of re-entry (Nedick’s Stores v T.S.N.Y. Realty Corp., 156 AD2d 123, 124). In any event, no provision in the prime lease authorizes a setoff for the moneys allegedly expended to renovate and improve the premises as against the $100,000 minimum monthly rent specified in the prime lease. In fact, it expressly prohibits the same. Whatever claims appellant may have against Shark under the sublease can be pursued in a separate legal action (see, Stewart v Long Is. R. R. Co., 102 NY 601).

We have considered appellant’s other contentions and find them to be without merit. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Carro, Ellerin, Wallach and Nardelli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

202 A.D.2d 251, 608 N.Y.S.2d 635, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2283, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/banque-nationale-de-paris-v-1567-broadway-ownership-associates-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack