Cromwell v. Le Sannom Building Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Cromwell v. Le Sannom Building Corp.

222 A.D.2d 307, 636 N.Y.S.2d 257, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13049

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

DecidedDecember 19, 1995

StatusPublished

This text of 222 A.D.2d 307 (Cromwell v. Le Sannom Building 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

Cromwell v. Le Sannom Building Corp., 222 A.D.2d 307, 636 N.Y.S.2d 257, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13049 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Helen Freedman, J.), entered on or about May 22, 1995, which, insofar as appealed from, denied defendant-appellant landlord’s motion to compel plaintiffs tenants to deposit into escrow unpaid use and occupancy for the period August 1991 through May 31, 1995, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Contrary to defendant’s contention, law of the case does not mandate the back use and occupancy payments it seeks. The deterioration of the building is a new development since the prior order directing plaintiffs to pay monthly use and occupancy into escrow (see, Solow v Wellner, 186 AD2d 21; Holloway v Cha Cha Laundry, 97 AD2d 385, 386). The consequences of this change cannot be precisely assessed before trial but may entitle plaintiffs to a significant setoff against their liability for past use and occupancy. Concur — Murphy, P. J., Rosenberger, Ross, Nardelli and Mazzarelli, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Helen Freedman, J.), entered on or about May 22, 1995, which, insofar as appealed from, denied defendant-appellant landlord’s motion to compel plaintiffs tenants to deposit into escrow unpaid use and occupancy for the period August 1991 through May 31, 1995, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Contrary to defendant’s contention, law of the case does not mandate the back use and occupancy payments it seeks. The deterioration of the building is a new development since the prior order directing plaintiffs to pay monthly use and occupancy into escrow (see, Solow v Wellner, 186 AD2d 21; Holloway v Cha Cha Laundry, 97 AD2d 385, 386). The consequences of this change cannot be precisely assessed before trial but may entitle plaintiffs to a significant setoff against their liability for past use and occupancy. Concur — Murphy, P. J., Rosenberger, Ross, Nardelli and Mazzarelli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

222 A.D.2d 307, 636 N.Y.S.2d 257, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13049, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cromwell-v-le-sannom-building-corp-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack