Casilia v. Webster LLC

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Casilia v. Webster LLC

140 A.D.3d 530, 32 N.Y.S.3d 494

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

DecidedJune 16, 2016

Docket1484 157076/12

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 140 A.D.3d 530 (Casilia v. Webster LLC) 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

Casilia v. Webster LLC, 140 A.D.3d 530, 32 N.Y.S.3d 494 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Eileen A. Rakower, J.), entered April 28, 2015, which, to the extent appealed from, denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted by plaintiff Casilia, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion granted. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly.

Plaintiff Casilia’s alleged inability to use the leased premises as a catering hall due to the certificate of occupancy does not relieve her of the obligation to pay rent for the period of time during which she occupied the premises (Phillips & Huyler Assoc, v Flynn, 225 AD2d 475 [1st Dept 1996]). The lease did not require defendant landlord to obtain a certificate of occupancy that would permit plaintiff’s intended use of the premises (see Rivera v JRJ Land Prop. Corp., 27 AD3d 361 [1st Dept 2006]; Silver v Moe’s Pizza, 121 AD2d 376, 378 [2d Dept 1986]), and there is no evidence that defendant fraudulently induced plaintiff to execute the lease or made a specific representation that her intended use would comply with the certificate of occupancy (Phillips & Huyler Assoc., 225 AD2d at 475). Plaintiff’s admission that she never operated a business at the premises negates her claim for loss of goodwill.

Concur— Acosta, J.P, Renwick, Saxe, Richter and Gische, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Eileen A. Rakower, J.), entered April 28, 2015, which, to the extent appealed from, denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted by plaintiff Casilia, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion granted. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly.

Plaintiff Casilia’s alleged inability to use the leased premises as a catering hall due to the certificate of occupancy does not relieve her of the obligation to pay rent for the period of time during which she occupied the premises (Phillips & Huyler Assoc, v Flynn, 225 AD2d 475 [1st Dept 1996]). The lease did not require defendant landlord to obtain a certificate of occupancy that would permit plaintiff’s intended use of the premises (see Rivera v JRJ Land Prop. Corp., 27 AD3d 361 [1st Dept 2006]; Silver v Moe’s Pizza, 121 AD2d 376, 378 [2d Dept 1986]), and there is no evidence that defendant fraudulently induced plaintiff to execute the lease or made a specific representation that her intended use would comply with the certificate of occupancy (Phillips & Huyler Assoc., 225 AD2d at 475). Plaintiff’s admission that she never operated a business at the premises negates her claim for loss of goodwill.

Concur— Acosta, J.P, Renwick, Saxe, Richter and Gische, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

140 A.D.3d 530, 32 N.Y.S.3d 494, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/casilia-v-webster-llc-nyappdiv-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack