Capital Cities Media, Inc. v. Yeshiva University

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Capital Cities Media, Inc. v. Yeshiva University

237 A.D.2d 210, 655 N.Y.S.2d 480, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2766

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided March 25, 1997·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Lew[211]*211is Friedman, J.), entered June 14, 1996, which, inter alia, upon the parties’ respective motions for summary judgment, declared in plaintiff tenant’s favor that it was constructively evicted by defendant landlord, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Although plaintiff relocated its offices and ceased to actively use the leased space, it continued to pay rent in accordance with the lease after .defendant admittedly refused to negotiate surrender of the space and stated that it would hold plaintiff to the lease for its full term. Under these circumstances, defendant’s entry, removal of plaintiff’s property and commission of acts that fundamentally altered the space, rendering it unusable for any of the purposes allowed under the lease without substantial reconstruction, constituted a constructive eviction (see, Barash v Pennsylvania Term. Real Estate Corp., 26 NY2d 77, 82, 83). Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Milonas, Tom and Andrias, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Lew[211]*211is Friedman, J.), entered June 14, 1996, which, inter alia, upon the parties’ respective motions for summary judgment, declared in plaintiff tenant’s favor that it was constructively evicted by defendant landlord, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Although plaintiff relocated its offices and ceased to actively use the leased space, it continued to pay rent in accordance with the lease after .defendant admittedly refused to negotiate surrender of the space and stated that it would hold plaintiff to the lease for its full term. Under these circumstances, defendant’s entry, removal of plaintiff’s property and commission of acts that fundamentally altered the space, rendering it unusable for any of the purposes allowed under the lease without substantial reconstruction, constituted a constructive eviction (see, Barash v Pennsylvania Term. Real Estate Corp., 26 NY2d 77, 82, 83). Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Milonas, Tom and Andrias, JJ.

Capital Cities Media, Inc. v. Yeshiva University, 237 A.D.2d 210, 655 N.Y.S.2d 480, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2766 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

237 A.D.2d 210 (Capital Cities Media, Inc. v. Yeshiva University) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related