Cohen v. Berkowitz

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Cohen v. Berkowitz

288 A.D.2d 156, 733 N.Y.S.2d 351, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11538

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

DecidedNovember 29, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 288 A.D.2d 156 (Cohen v. Berkowitz) 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

Cohen v. Berkowitz, 288 A.D.2d 156, 733 N.Y.S.2d 351, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11538 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Marylin Diamond, J.), entered June 25, 2001, which denied defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The complaint sufficiently alleges that but for defendants’ malpractice in preparing a defective notice of non-renewal to one of the tenants in the townhouse that plaintiffs purchased, plaintiffs would have prevailed in the eviction proceeding they brought against the tenant (ef., Berkeley Assocs. Co. v Camlakides, 173 AD2d 193, affd 78 NY2d 1098). Whether the tenant had defenses to the eviction proceeding other than the alleged defective notice is a question to be raised by defendants and explored after issue is joined. The damages alleged — either (1) the cost of finding the tenant, who turned 62 years old during the term of the renewal lease, comparable housing or otherwise inducing her to vacate her apartment, or (2) the difference between the fair market value of the townhouse with the tenant in it and its fair market value were she not in it— are ascertainable through expert testimony and otherwise, and [157]*157are not speculative. Whether plaintiffs are entitled to the particular damages they seek is a question that also should be explored after joinder of issue. Concur — Mazzarelli, J. P., Andrias, Buckley and Marlow, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Marylin Diamond, J.), entered June 25, 2001, which denied defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The complaint sufficiently alleges that but for defendants’ malpractice in preparing a defective notice of non-renewal to one of the tenants in the townhouse that plaintiffs purchased, plaintiffs would have prevailed in the eviction proceeding they brought against the tenant (ef., Berkeley Assocs. Co. v Camlakides, 173 AD2d 193, affd 78 NY2d 1098). Whether the tenant had defenses to the eviction proceeding other than the alleged defective notice is a question to be raised by defendants and explored after issue is joined. The damages alleged — either (1) the cost of finding the tenant, who turned 62 years old during the term of the renewal lease, comparable housing or otherwise inducing her to vacate her apartment, or (2) the difference between the fair market value of the townhouse with the tenant in it and its fair market value were she not in it— are ascertainable through expert testimony and otherwise, and [157]*157are not speculative. Whether plaintiffs are entitled to the particular damages they seek is a question that also should be explored after joinder of issue. Concur — Mazzarelli, J. P., Andrias, Buckley and Marlow, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

288 A.D.2d 156, 733 N.Y.S.2d 351, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11538, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cohen-v-berkowitz-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack