Casa Bosco, Inc. v. 118-01 Metropolitan Avenue Realty Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Casa Bosco, Inc. v. 118-01 Metropolitan Avenue Realty Corp.

28 A.D.3d 698, 812 N.Y.S.2d 882

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

DecidedApril 25, 2006

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 28 A.D.3d 698 (Casa Bosco, Inc. v. 118-01 Metropolitan Avenue Realty Corp.) 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

Casa Bosco, Inc. v. 118-01 Metropolitan Avenue Realty Corp., 28 A.D.3d 698, 812 N.Y.S.2d 882 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

[699]*699In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of a lease, the defendants 118-01/21 Metropolitan Avenue, LLC, and Stonecrest Management Company appeal, as limited by their brief, from (1) so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Satterfield, J.), entered July 8, 2004, as denied that branch of their motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them, and (2) so much of an order of the same court entered February 7, 2005, as, upon reargument, adhered to the original determination.

Ordered that the appeal from the order entered July 8, 2004 is dismissed, without costs or disbursements, as that order was superseded by the order entered February 7, 2005, made upon reargument; and it is further,

Ordered that the order entered February 7, 2005 is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

The appellants failed to tender sufficient evidence to demonstrate the absence of a triable issue of fact. Thus, they failed to establish their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, and that branch of their motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them was properly denied, regardless of the sufficiency of the plaintiffs opposing papers (see Ayotte v Gervasio, 81 NY2d 1062 [1993]). Even assuming that the plaintiffs claim for lost profits is speculative, the plaintiff may be entitled to recover, upon proof of a breach of the lease obligations by the landlord, the difference between the rent actually paid and the rental value of the premises as a result of the landlord’s breach (see Cybersettle.Com, Inc. v Northern Westchester Professional Park Assoc., 2 AD3d 768; West Broadway Glass Co. v I.T.M. Bar, 245 AD2d 232 [1997]).

The appellants’ remaining contentions are without merit. Goldstein, J.P., Luciano, Rivera and Fisher, JJ, concur.

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

[699]*699In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of a lease, the defendants 118-01/21 Metropolitan Avenue, LLC, and Stonecrest Management Company appeal, as limited by their brief, from (1) so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Satterfield, J.), entered July 8, 2004, as denied that branch of their motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them, and (2) so much of an order of the same court entered February 7, 2005, as, upon reargument, adhered to the original determination.

Ordered that the appeal from the order entered July 8, 2004 is dismissed, without costs or disbursements, as that order was superseded by the order entered February 7, 2005, made upon reargument; and it is further,

Ordered that the order entered February 7, 2005 is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

The appellants failed to tender sufficient evidence to demonstrate the absence of a triable issue of fact. Thus, they failed to establish their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, and that branch of their motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them was properly denied, regardless of the sufficiency of the plaintiffs opposing papers (see Ayotte v Gervasio, 81 NY2d 1062 [1993]). Even assuming that the plaintiffs claim for lost profits is speculative, the plaintiff may be entitled to recover, upon proof of a breach of the lease obligations by the landlord, the difference between the rent actually paid and the rental value of the premises as a result of the landlord’s breach (see Cybersettle.Com, Inc. v Northern Westchester Professional Park Assoc., 2 AD3d 768; West Broadway Glass Co. v I.T.M. Bar, 245 AD2d 232 [1997]).

The appellants’ remaining contentions are without merit. Goldstein, J.P., Luciano, Rivera and Fisher, JJ, concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

28 A.D.3d 698, 812 N.Y.S.2d 882, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/casa-bosco-inc-v-118-01-metropolitan-avenue-realty-corp-nyappdiv-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack