Brandywine Realty Trust v. Blodnick, Blodnick & Zelin, P.C.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Brandywine Realty Trust v. Blodnick, Blodnick & Zelin, P.C.

5 A.D.3d 419, 772 N.Y.S.2d 602, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2447

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided March 8, 2004·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for breach of a lease, the defendants Blodnick, Gordon, Blodnick & Zelin and Blodnick, Gordon, Fletcher & Sibell, EC., appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Peck, J.), dated November 20, 2002, which denied their joint motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly denied the appellants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them. In opposition to the appellants’ prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, the plaintiff raised triable issues of fact as to the appellants’ successor liability for the subject lease (see Schumacher v Richards Shear Co., 59 NY2d 239, 245 [1983]; Jelvakov v AHL Processing Equip., 3 AD3d 519 [2004]; Fitzgerald v Fahnestock & Co., 286 AD2d 573 [2001]; Ladenburg Thalmann & Co. v Tim’s Amusements, 275 AD2d 243 [2000]; Graham v James, 144 F3d 229, 240 [2d Cir 1998]). Krausman, J.P., Schmidt, Cozier and Mastro, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover damages for breach of a lease, the defendants Blodnick, Gordon, Blodnick & Zelin and Blodnick, Gordon, Fletcher & Sibell, EC., appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Peck, J.), dated November 20, 2002, which denied their joint motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly denied the appellants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them. In opposition to the appellants’ prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, the plaintiff raised triable issues of fact as to the appellants’ successor liability for the subject lease (see Schumacher v Richards Shear Co., 59 NY2d 239, 245 [1983]; Jelvakov v AHL Processing Equip., 3 AD3d 519 [2004]; Fitzgerald v Fahnestock & Co., 286 AD2d 573 [2001]; Ladenburg Thalmann & Co. v Tim’s Amusements, 275 AD2d 243 [2000]; Graham v James, 144 F3d 229, 240 [2d Cir 1998]). Krausman, J.P., Schmidt, Cozier and Mastro, JJ., concur.

Brandywine Realty Trust v. Blodnick, Blodnick & Zelin, P.C., 5 A.D.3d 419, 772 N.Y.S.2d 602, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2447 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

5 A.D.3d 419 (Brandywine Realty Trust v. Blodnick, Blodnick & Zelin, P.C.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related