Cooper v. Number 535 Park Avenue

73 A.D.3d 433, 899 N.Y.S.2d 599
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMay 4, 2010
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 73 A.D.3d 433 (Cooper v. Number 535 Park Avenue) 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
Cooper v. Number 535 Park Avenue, 73 A.D.3d 433, 899 N.Y.S.2d 599 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2010).

Opinion

Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Michael D. Stallman, J.), entered July 17, 2009, granting defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 and declaring that plaintiff did not validly exercise an option to renew the subject lease, unanimously reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion denied, the declaration vacated, and the matter remanded for service of an answer and for further proceedings. Appeal from order, same court and Justice, entered May 5, 2009, upon a stipulation dated April 23, 2009, which denied plaintiffs motion to consolidate this action with a holdover proceeding in Civil Court, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as taken from a nonappealable paper.

We need not decide whether the documentary evidence conclusively establishes that plaintiff failed to renew the lease in compliance with its terms (see American Realty Co. v 64 B Venture, 176 AD2d 226, 227 [1991], lv denied 79 NY2d 756 [1992]). Plaintiffs allegations that any deficiencies in the notice were inadvertent and that he has made significant improvements in the premises and accumulated 30 years of goodwill in his optometry practice are sufficient to warrant consideration of equitable relief to avoid a forfeiture (see J. N. A. Realty Corp. v Cross Bay Chelsea, 42 NY2d 392 [1977]; see also Blumenthal v 162 E. 80th Tenants, 88 AD2d 871 [1982]).

[434]*434No appeal lies from an order entered on consent (Matter of Tyshawn Jaraind C., 33 AD3d 488 [2006]). Plaintiffs remedy is a motion to set aside the stipulation (Hopkins v Hopkins, 97 AD2d 457 [1983]). Concur—Andrias, J.P., Friedman, Catterson, McGuire and Román, JJ. [Prior Case History: 2009 NY Slip Op 31490(U).]

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

Related

Carr v. Haas
2018 NY Slip Op 5244 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2018)
Saunders v. Rhea
92 A.D.3d 602 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
73 A.D.3d 433, 899 N.Y.S.2d 599, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cooper-v-number-535-park-avenue-nyappdiv-2010.