Carner v. Board of Education of the City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Carner v. Board of Education of the City of New York

212 A.D.2d 381, 622 N.Y.S.2d 38, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1246

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

DecidedFebruary 7, 1995

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 212 A.D.2d 381 (Carner v. Board of Education of the City of New York) 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

Carner v. Board of Education of the City of New York, 212 A.D.2d 381, 622 N.Y.S.2d 38, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1246 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, Bronx County (Anne Targum, J.), entered July 1, 1994, after a non-jury trial, which declared that the parties had not entered into a renewal lease and plaintiff was not entitled to damages, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court properly found that the writings revealed that defendants never agreed to a renewal lease (see, Cobble Hill Nursing Home v Henry & Warren Corp., 74 NY2d 475, 482-483, cert denied 498 US 816). Nor was there evidence that the signator of the letter of April 18, 1991, who negotiated the terms of the renewal lease, had the written authority to bind defendants to a multi-year lease (see, General Obligations Law § 5-703 [2]; Commission on Ecumenical Mission & Relations v Roger Gray, Ltd., 27 NY2d 457). Most importantly, renovation and repair of the building to defendants’ satisfaction, especially the HVAC system, was a condition precedent to the agreement to enter into the lease, which condition was never satisfied. Finally, no new tenancy was created by defendant’s remaining in occupancy as a month-to-month tenant and payment of use and occupancy (see, Real Property Law § 232-c; Akivis v Drucker, 177 AD2d 349, appeal dismissed and lv dismissed 80 NY2d 786). Concur—Ellerin, J. P., Kupferman, Asch, Nardelli and Williams, JJ.

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

—Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, Bronx County (Anne Targum, J.), entered July 1, 1994, after a non-jury trial, which declared that the parties had not entered into a renewal lease and plaintiff was not entitled to damages, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court properly found that the writings revealed that defendants never agreed to a renewal lease (see, Cobble Hill Nursing Home v Henry & Warren Corp., 74 NY2d 475, 482-483, cert denied 498 US 816). Nor was there evidence that the signator of the letter of April 18, 1991, who negotiated the terms of the renewal lease, had the written authority to bind defendants to a multi-year lease (see, General Obligations Law § 5-703 [2]; Commission on Ecumenical Mission & Relations v Roger Gray, Ltd., 27 NY2d 457). Most importantly, renovation and repair of the building to defendants’ satisfaction, especially the HVAC system, was a condition precedent to the agreement to enter into the lease, which condition was never satisfied. Finally, no new tenancy was created by defendant’s remaining in occupancy as a month-to-month tenant and payment of use and occupancy (see, Real Property Law § 232-c; Akivis v Drucker, 177 AD2d 349, appeal dismissed and lv dismissed 80 NY2d 786). Concur—Ellerin, J. P., Kupferman, Asch, Nardelli and Williams, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

212 A.D.2d 381, 622 N.Y.S.2d 38, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1246, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/carner-v-board-of-education-of-the-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack